Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Denied permission Greenpeace begins sampling radiation off Fukushima anyway

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 10:27 AM
Original message
Denied permission Greenpeace begins sampling radiation off Fukushima anyway
http://www.panorientnews.com/en/news.php?k=933



Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior Begins Fukushima Coast Radiation Sampling

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Tokyo- (PanOrient News) Despite being denied permission to conduct radiation sampling within Japan’s 12 mile territorial waters, the Greenpeace flag ship, the Rainbow Warrior, today began testing for radioactive contamination to the south of the crisis-stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex, the group said in a statement.

The international environmental organisation will now focus on the testing that can be completed off the Ibaraki coast, and to the southern border of the evacuation zone. In the meantime, Greenpeace has appealed to the Japanese Prime Minster to personally intervene and grant permission marine testing programme inside the 12 mile limit.

“While the government is has denied us access within 12 miles of Japan’s coast, Greenpeace will do what it can to test for radioactivity in the ocean and marine life off Fukushima, which is being contaminated by constant leaking of radioactive water from the plant”, said Ike Teuling, Greenpeace radiation expert aboard the Rainbow Warrior.

“People are crying out for independent assessment of the level of contamination, and for clear unbiased advice concerning any potential health effects. That is what we came to do and that is what we will provide to the best of our ability”.

“The Japanese government can and should change its mind and allow us to carry out the much more detailed radioactive contamination assessment as outlined in our original request for permission," according to the statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. Highlights a common failure among anti-nukes.
Someone immediately becomes an "expert" simply by being the closest the anti-nukes can come to credibility (usually not very). Actual credibility is not required.

In this case, a young lady with a bachelor's degree in chemistry and a couple years out of school is their "radiation expert".

People are crying out for independent assessment of the level of contamination, and for clear unbiased advice concerning any potential health effects.

Greenpeace has been providing radiation measurements all over Japan. Their reporting can hardly be characterized as "independent & unbiased"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Uh
Which is true:

a) You have some credible argument (scientific or otherwise) to make about some actual piece of data, idea or information?
b) You are just taking a large crap on people who don't know and for whom you have some childish deep-seated resentment for?

People are crying out for independent assessment, so please fly over to Japan and roll around in the harmless filth and provide us with some reliable reporting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. That would be "c)"
Edited on Wed May-04-11 05:08 PM by FBaggins
Measurements should be taken by people with the background to do it correctly, and "independent" assessments should be done by people who are, in fact, independent.

They represent neither.

Scientists from universities with the requisite skill set and/or from other countries would be ideal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Someguyinjapan Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. The Japanese have had every opportunity
Edited on Wed May-04-11 06:19 PM by Someguyinjapan
To do exactly as you describe, and they have consistently failed in their obligations to do so. Do you really want a laundry list of the mistakes, errors and missteps the government and TEPCO have made from the start? Just yesterday you posted a thread about the latest f_uck-up involving the release of the withheld SPEEDI data. Both Japanese government and corporate entities have the people, tools and skills to take such measurements correctly, yet we were treated to the spectacle of TEPCO releasing radiation levels on more than one occasion that were off by millions.

As I have mentioned repeatedly to you, and as you have yet to provide any compelling argument to the contrary, the Japanese government and TEPCO have basically destroyed any credibilty they had in their incessant bungling of Fukushima, and had they done their f_ckin' jobs properly at the outset, I wouldn't feel the need to be here.

Yes, scientists from universities or other countries would be ideal, but they will suffer from the same handicap that everyone else does: incomplet access to data, or are you so wrapped up in your mission you miss that subtle point every time you qualify one of your statements with "might", "could", "maybe", etc? So why don't you march down to the nearest Japanese consulate and start demanding that the Japanese government and TEPCO immediately release 100% of the accumulated data thus far from Fukushima to the IAEA so a thorough, independent analysis can be performed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Hardly
Edited on Wed May-04-11 06:35 PM by FBaggins
There are radiation levels being reported by a NUMBER of sources. It isn't just TEPCO

You just don't like the results.

Do you really want a laundry list of the mistakes, errors and missteps the government and TEPCO have made from the start?

I don't doubt that they've made plenty of mistakes. But forging thousands of data points when independent readings would have proven them to be dishonest would be awfully tough to pull off.

Yes, scientists from universities or other countries would be ideal, but they will suffer from the same handicap that everyone else does: incomplet access to data

They're incapable of taking their own readings? It isn't "independent" if they're accessing the same data.

start demanding that the Japanese government and TEPCO immediately release 100% of the accumulated data thus far from Fukushima to the IAEA so a thorough, independent analysis can be performed?

You would consider an IAEA analysis to be independent? That's refreshing.

Data has been released that was taken by MEXT, by TEPCO, by the Ministry of Defence, by police, by the JAEA, and by a number of universities and individual prefectures. There isn't anything that reflects a bias in one of those sources. There are also readings reported from all around the world that remain consistent with the reported readings in Japan. That's how Chernobyl was busted. Russia lied by other countries could tell that it was more serious. You think the rest of the world would aide the coverup and the expense of their own populations? All to prop up the evil nuclear industry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Someguyinjapan Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Stop putting words in my mouth
I made no mention of forgery in that sentence or anywhere else in my post. Nor did I imply it. So stop reading meaning into something that is not there.

You "don't doubt" that they have made plenty of mistakes?Try reading back through some of the threads on this very website, since you are so concerned with referencing and source matdrial-that should remove any doubt you have. And if that is so then you agree that the Japanese have less credibility than someone else at this stage of the crisis.

It's easy to put your faith in the Japanese authorities' ability to manage both this crisis and the release of information that it is obligated to in order to best equip it's residents to make informed decisions from afar. You'd probably be less enthusiastic if you were over here, say in Tokyo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Someguyinjapan Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. What did I just tell you?
You would consider an IAEA analysis to be independent? That's refreshing.
Yeah I would, considering that the IAEA was quite vocal about the slow, plodding nature of information release on part of the Japanese early on.

Data has been released that was taken by MEXT
Would that be the same MEXT that belatedly released the SPEEDI data weeks after the fact?

by TEPCO
Wow, you aren't seriously citing TEPCO as a credible source of information at this stage, are you? Have you not been paying attention the past few weeks to their antics?

by police
Yes, as we know the police are foremost authorities on, have been trained to and have equipment for monitoring radiation release. And you're dumping on Greenpeace...

You think the rest of the world would aide the coverup and the expense of their own populations? All to prop up the evil nuclear industry?
Again with the assumptions. My bone of contention is not with the nuclear industry (although there is plenty on that issue over here that merits decrying) but with how the Japanese government and the power utility involved-for whatever reasons-failed in their responsibility in providing full, accurate, and timely information to its citizens about the severity of the crisis at Fukushima. As a result-as I have been repeating-this has essentially destroyed any credibility in terms of managing the crisis, managing information thereof, and providing it to us-the residents-so we can best make informed decisions for ourselves. In addition, the Japanese government and TEPCO have consistently sought to downplay the severity of the incident (disagreeing with American assessments as to how wide the exclusion zone should be, taking a week to completely close down access to the exclusion zone, arguing against an elevation from IAEA level 5 to level 6 and then suddenly elevating it to level 7, etc).

I am not talking about bias. I am not talking about conspiracy. I am talking about blatant incompetence on part of the two principal parties involved. Yet once again we are treated over here to the typical arrogant, aloof, governmental/corporate response to an environmental disaster over here. This type of thing is not without precedence in Japan, although I doubt you as a physicist would have bothered to read up on Minimata Bay. It's been 50+ years and just recently the victims have mostly recieved compensation, while the company responsible is alive and well and has only recently (2004) been ordered to clean up the filth that lead to it all. And that is just the best known example; there have been plenty of other such scandals since then, not the least of which involve TEPCO. So you'll forgive me if I treat the Japanese government/TEPCO's repsonse as to how they have handled this with a jaundiced eye, because it's starting to look like just about every other case of corporate/government collusion in downplaying the impact of an event at it's citizen's expense that may interfere with profits. It isn't about the "evil" nuclear industry over here, it's about industry in general and how they have been permitted to risk their citizen's lives in order to make a buck.

Once more, stop reading meaning that isn't there into statements I make. For a supposed scientist, you have a remarkable capacity for doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainlion55 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. Like Einstein said
Its a hell of a way to boil water! There are only two currently viable energy sources-SOLAR & WIND! Everything else is bullshit!:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Neither wing nor solar is robust enough to replace coal, oil, or nuclear.
All coal and oil do is to boil water to make electricity. Nuclear is just a more efficient way to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. That isn't true - nuclear is a third rate source of energy, just like coalCCS
Edited on Wed May-04-11 11:42 AM by kristopher
As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


Above paragraph broken apart for ease of reading:
You can download the full article at his webpage here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Or use this direct download link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

You can view the html abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Download slide presentation here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/0902UIllinois.pdf

Results graphed here: http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. So says Jacobsen.
Edited on Wed May-04-11 12:05 PM by FBaggins
Luckily for the rest of the world... his opinion doesn't mean much.

Looks like those new reactors are going to be built. Arnie has his last-ditch plea to stop them already in the hopper (claiming amazingly that they are LESS-safe than current designs due to a "newly discovered" design flaw - though it's really the same "flaw" he "discovered" over a year ago that didn't get any traction). What's left but the kitchen sink?

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/3800
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Jacobson's back?
He was fun for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Not really
Kris is just playing his "greatest hits" album again. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. So you post that babbling bit of spam yet again.
And you still don't care that it doesn't say at all what you imagine it says. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainlion55 Donating Member (302 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Radioactive waste
Enough said. Wind and solar yes! Nukes no!:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-04-11 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. Thankyou Greenpeace!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC