Friday, August 09, 2013

Rhode Island Braces As Fights Rage Over Utilities’ Smart Meters


Rhode Island Braces As Fights Rage Over Utilities’ Smart Meters

Friday, August 09, 2013
Dean Starkman, GoLocalProv News Editor
Maybe Southeast New England is deciding that “smart meters” aren’t such a smart idea after all.
For several years, a cadre of determined activists in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have been waging what once seemed to be a quixotic campaign against a program to replace relatively simple and inexpensive residential electric meters with a high-tech version that critics say is a boondoggle for utilities and meter companies that takes yet another bite from ratepayers and, some say, raises health concerns.
On the face of it, the fight is a mismatch par excellence. On one side is a scattered group of homeowners and activists. On the other is a consortium of corporations, led by National Grid, a multinational power giant headquartered in the United Kingdom, and that includes Verizon, Google, Cisco, and government backers from the Obama administration on down.
And ground zero is Worcester, where, with the help of friendly regulators at the Department of Public Utilities and the support of Governor Deval Patrick, National Grid is already halfway through installing 15,000 of the meters in homes in the city.
Rhode Island, meanwhile, has a little-known pilot program of its own—a far more modest one on Aquidneck Island and one approved under a different economic rationale. There are no current plans to expand the meters in Rhode Island, and at least one member of the Public Utilities Commission is determined that the situation stays that way until much more evidence is brought to bear that these meters are worth it and have the support of consumers.

A prominent skeptic

In an interview with GoLocalProv, Commissioner Paul J. Roberti says smart meters don’t come close to justifying their costs and represent a misguided attempt to modify the behavior of consumers in ways that don’t conform the real world.
How smart is the choice to convert to smart meters? Maybe not so smart in the final analysis.
“You know what? The markets, the structure of pricing is not there,” he says. “These people (meter proponents) want to push all this stuff–I call them behavior-modification specialists––forcing things on consumers that don’t come naturally. You can’t get consumers to fully embrace this unless you give them economic pain, which I won’t do.”
Utilities have already installed about 18 million smart meters across U.S., while $3.4 billion in economic-stimulus money is supporting the installation of 40 million more smart meters in 40 states, according to an in-depth look at the technology by Consumer Reports. By 2015, an estimated 65 million smart meters will have been installed.

Promise of savings

A central promise of smart meters is that the massive amount of information they generate could be used to get consumers to lower their power during peak periods–either through coercion via higher rates at peak hours or through rebates. The hope is that the new technology would lower overall usage and costs.
Trouble is, it hasn’t worked out that way as pilot programs around the country have failed to show that the meters actually live up to their main promise: actually reducing overall energy consumption. In a stinging letter to the state Department of Public Utilities Commission, for instance, a lawyer from Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office pointed to large-scale tests in Illinois and elsewhere in which the meters failed to justify their costs.
“Despite these clear trends, [National Grid] proposes to launch a massive pilot at great ratepayer expense to test already tested hypotheses,” Coakley’s office wrote.
The industry-friendly DPU last year brushed aside such concerns, and, in a 103-page order, approved Worcester's program.
Jillian Fennimore, spokeswoman for Coakley’s office, says, “We are currently monitoring the smart grid pilot program” and will review the results of the final report that results.
DPU referred questions about the Worcester program to National Grid.

“Best interest of customers”

In an email, National Grid didn’t respond to Coakely’s specific assertions, but said: “We followed a defined process with the DPU that the AG was part of. The DPU ruled and now we are executing the pilot that we believe to be in the best interest of customers and will help in defining the future grid that will serve customers for generations to come.”
The spokeswoman said the meters are “designed to provide participating customers a new level of choice and control over their energy use through advanced technology, with the goals of empowering customers to save energy, increasing electric service reliability and improving response to power outages.”

Worcester, the “lab rat”

The Worcester pilot is being closely watched as–yet another–test of whether the economic benefits of the meters come anywhere near offsetting the costs: $45 million just for the pilot. The stakes are high: it would cost an estimated $7 billion if the entire state were to switch to smart meters–the amount coming at the expense of ratepayers who will see the cost added to their monthly bills. Nationally, the grand total is pegged at more than a quarter trillion dollars. The rate increases come on top of federal taxpayer subsidies from stimulus.
“Worcester is the lab rat,” Patricia Burke, a leader of smart meter opponents, said recently on a local cable show. “They’re looking to see how low-income, middle income and upper-income groups respond to different price points and technology.”
“But we’re not monitoring health,” she says. “This is the big issue.”
The city is also being watched to see whether community opposition can have any effect -- at all -- in slowing a program that once seemed destined quietly to sweep the country. The immediate venue is a September 9 hearing before the city Zoning Board of Appeals on a controversial 80-foot cellphone tower in the city needed to support the wireless signals from meters installed in or outside residences to National Grid data centers. The hearing has been postponed several times but zoning laws general favor the towers. The longer-term, and perhaps more promising, fight is for public opinion: trying to convince ratepayers to “opt-out” of the program.

Many concerns

John Dick, a 59-year-old carpenter in Worcester, says the issue has generated high interested among neighbors who have come together to oppose the meters for a variety of reasons. Some are concerned about privacy (the meters will generate a substantial amount of information about customers’ power usage); some are worried about possible health effects of radio emissions; some about cost; and a vocal contingent raises NIMBY-esque aesthetic objections to the towers.
“For a lot of people, it’s about the towers,” Dick says. “For me, it’s the whole thing. The people in the neighborhood are very much up in arms, from all sides of the political spectrum. It’s not a ‘right’ issue. It’s not a ‘left’ issue. It’s not crazies. It’s very moderate, very conservative people.”
Activists see more residents gravitating to their point of view.
“We feel the tide turning, and it’s a beautiful thing,“ says Clare Donegan, a 52-year-old mother of three grown children who lives in Quincy and who has helped organize opposition in Worcester and across the state.
Indeed, some political figures have opposed the meters or tried to moderate the terms of their installation. Connecticut’s attorney general, George Jepsen, came out strongly against a plan by that state’s utilities two years ago to roll out smart meters statewide, saying an earlier pilot “showed no beneficial impact on total energy usage.” Partly as a result, the state’s energy regulators shelved the plan. Meanwhile, Maine and Vermont joined six other states around the country to pass laws making it easier for consumers to opt out of smart meter programs and keep old meters. A similar bill, proposed by Rep. Thomas Conroy, D-Wayland, is pending in Massachusetts.
But while opponents may be gaining some traction, given the corporate power arrayed in meters’ favor, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to stop smart meters in the long run. Consumer Reports, for one, says that given the corporate forces arrayed in favor of the program, national smart-meter implementation is “all but a given.”

Health worries

Rhode Island, meanwhile, watches warily.
Mary Adkins, 52, an activist in Wakefield, has been primary concerned about what she describes as the health hazards posed by radio emissions of smart meters, which she believes in some respects are worse than similar emissions from such devices as cell phones and Wi-Fi.
“This is all about profit,” she says. “This is all about the economy. This about wireless companies making billions, hundreds of billions, while our health is jeopardized. And that’s not acceptable.”
Roberti says such health concerns among consumers should be taken into account in deciding whether to adopt a program of such scope. And in any case, he says, states should tread warily if even simple cost/benefit issues haven’t been resolved in the meters’ favor.
“If these things are going to happen, they should happen on their own,” he says. “We shouldn’t go around and frontload all these costs. There’s just not enough of a natural market mechanism to do this. I don’t like when regulators are trying to force things.”

Related Articles


http://www.golocalprov.com/news/rhode-island-braces-for-fight-over-utilities-smart-meters/
Posted by at No comments:

Cell Phones: Assessing and Preventing Risks


Cell Phones: Assessing and Preventing Risks

Posted: 05/31/11 04:44 PM ET



The risks attached to the use of cellular and wireless phones are still substantially uncertain, but there are studies that hint at possible harms. In a report issued today (5/31/11), the WHO / International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" based on an increased risk for glioma associated with wireless phone use.
Given the massive and growing exposure to cell phones, the precautionary principle requires that even uncertain harms be treated with care and respect.
Few have advocated more ardently for higher standards of 'cell(f) defense' than Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD. Dr. Joel Moskowitz, a friend and colleague, is on the research faculty at the University of California, Berkeley and directs the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health. He has conducted research on health promotion and chronic disease prevention for more than thirty years, with a recent focus on wireless phone use.
Here, Dr. Moskowitz answers my questions about the talking we all increasingly do -- and offers his advice on how best to take stock, and control, of the risks involved. On the chance you have not heard Dr. Moskowitz' voice on this important topic before, I hope you can "hear him now!"
Q: How did you get involved in the study of cell phone effects?
A: I got involved when a colleague, Dr. Seung-Kwon Myung, an epidemiologist from the National Cancer Center of South Korea, spent a year working with us at UC Berkeley. He specializes in meta-analysis, a method by which data are combined across studies to generate more robust conclusions. In one study, we reviewed research that examined the association between cell phone use and tumor risk.
Q: Why in general are you concerned about potential harms from cell phones?
A: When we grouped the 23 studies based on the quality of the research, we found strong group differences. In the 13 studies which failed to meet scientific best practices, we found what appeared to be reduced tumor risk. The ten higher-quality studies found a harmful association between cell phone use and tumor risk. Also, the higher quality studies had no funding from the cellular industry whereas the lower quality studies had at least partial industry funding.
Initially, I was skeptical about the results, but as I read more of the science I am persuaded that long-term exposure to cell phone radiation increases tumor risk.
Since our study was published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, I have reviewed many other cell phone radiation studies. There is evidence that cell phone radiation may damage sperm and increase male infertility, increase brain glucose metabolism and alter EEG readings, and may create neurological, memory, and sleep problems for some individuals.
Q: How adequate do you think the science is to date?
A: I'm cautious in reading the literature because many studies are poorly executed or biased. We need more research on the short- and long-term health effects. We don't know enough about long term risks; risks to children and adolescents who are more vulnerable; or risks of newer technologies.
We need to understand better the mechanisms that contribute to health effects. Most scientists who trust the research that demonstrates biologic reactivity believe there are mechanisms other than heat at work. Our government regulations only address heat produced by cell phone radiation.
Q: Can you provide some kind of estimate of the risks -- upper and lower bounds, perhaps? What are the best and worst case scenarios?
A: It's premature to estimate long-term tumor risk because tumors can take three or more decades to develop. A few studies suggest that the risk of glioma, a serious brain tumor, doubles after 10 years of cell phone use. This could amount to an additional 10,000 cases per year in the U.S.
Many people have come to rely on their cell phones over land lines, and many children have begun to use cell phones, so we may see increased risk in the future. On the other hand, patterns of use (e.g., hands-free, texting) are changing which could reduce long-term risk. The technology is also changing, but we don't know if the newer technologies are safer.
Q: How do you compare the risk/benefit trade-offs for cell phones (the 'benefits' being convenience, etc.) to other routine practices, such as driving, or drinking alcohol, or going to the beach? Is there any reasonable way to place cell phone use on some kind of rank list of 'things to worry about'?
A: Obviously, there are substantial benefits to wireless technology, but we can be both practical and safer in terms of potential health risks by changing how we use these devices. Given the limited research, I think it's premature to estimate the risks.
Q: Are all cell phones, and cell phone carriers, created equal in this regard? If not, why not?
A: The amount of cell phone radiation your phone emits depends on various factors throughout the day, including your location and distance from cell towers. Some cell phones generate as much as eight times more radiation at the upper limit of the range than others. This measure, called the SAR, can be looked up on the internet for every cell phone. However, you can't find out how much radiation a phone generates during average daily use, which may be more important in terms of cumulative health risk. Some low SAR phones may generate more radiation on average than high SAR phones.
Your cell phone carrier may matter more than your cell phone. One study shows that GSMphones (e.g., AT&T, T-Mobile) emit 28 times more radiation on average than CDMA phones(e.g., Verizon, Sprint). Another study shows GSM affects EEG readings more than CDMA. More comparative studies on different carrier standards are needed.
Q: What do you recommend individuals do?
A: Keep a safe distance at all times. The amount of radiation is related to the square of the distance so keeping your phone 10 inches away reduces your exposure 100-fold compared to an inch. Use a headset, especially a corded device, or other hands-free method such as a speakerphone or text. Don't keep the phone near your head or reproductive organs when it is turned on. Children are more vulnerable, and their cell phone use should be very limited.
Q: What do you recommend for policy?
A: Although more research on cell phone radiation is needed, we cannot afford to wait for conclusive evidence. There are 300 million cell phones in use in this country, and two-thirds of children over the age of seven use them. The government's regulations are outmoded and need to be revised.
About a dozen nations have issued precautionary health warnings. It is time for our government to do the same and to publicize simple steps people can take to minimize their personal health risk.
An annual assessment of $1 on each cell phone would generate $300 million annually for vitally needed research and education.
Q: What do you do?
A: I usually use the speakerphone or a corded headset. I keep the phone on my desk or keep it turned off when I have it in my pocket, and turn it on periodically to check for messages, or I check for messages from a land line.
Here are Dr. Moskowitz' takeaways:
* Keep your cell phone away from your body whenever it is on. Use a corded headset, speakerphone or text.
* Minimize cell phone use among children, teens, and pregnant women.
* Demand that the federal government revise regulations, fund research, and issue precautionary health recommendations.
And here are some websites he recommends for more information, and keeping current:
My thanks to Dr. Moskowitz for a very informative and electromagnetically safe exchange! You now know the state-of-the-art in cell(f) defense; the practice of it is up to you.

 
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/cell-phone-health-risks_b_869241.html
Posted by at No comments:

‘Voodoo science’ will not solve the causality-problem of EHS


‘Voodoo science’ will not solve the causality-problem of EHS

August 7, 2013 in -Mailing List, Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity by EMFacts
Recommended reading on the controversy over EHS testing is the excellent commentary by Dariusz Leszczynski.
Don
******************************************************************************************
From the blog “Between a Rock and a Hard Place” by Dariusz Leszczynski:
Excerpt:
HELSINKI, Finland, August 6, 2013 — Technological development of wireless communication has brought an unprecedented increase in human, animal and plant exposure to microwave radiation.
Currently available biomedical research indicates that even at the low levels permitted by the safety standards, radiation exposures induce acute biological effects. The possible impact of the chronic exposures is not known beyond, at the most, the first 10-15 years. We do not have the faintest idea what will happen when exposures will last for a lifetime.
This lack of biomedical knowledge about the possible impact of the exposures on health of people and on the well being of animals and plants is in striking contrast with the technological progress.
Because of their usefulness and because of their profitability, wireless technologies are very rapidly expanding and exposures are reach more and more remote Earth locations. In a short time, there will be no place on Earth to “hide” from the omnipresent microwave exposures.
There is a group of people who call themselves electro-sensitive (ES) or electro-hyper-sensitive (EHS). They claim to get a variety of largely unspecific symptoms in response to exposures to man-made electromagnetic fields, emitted by the wireless communication devices. ES, or EHS, are mostly self-diagnosed by the patients, because they are not recognized as a medical illness. Physicians do not have diagnostic tools to detect or evaluate severity of ES/EHS.
Organizations that are responsible for defining what is and what is not an illness and responsible for setting safe exposure limits for electromagnetic radiation, the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES), all are of the opinion that the symptoms experienced by ES/EHS self-diagnosed persons are not caused by exposures to man-made electromagnetic radiation.
The WHO, ICNIRP and ICES have no sufficient scientific evidence that would support their claim of the lack of causality between the exposures to electromagnetic radiation and the symptoms experienced by ES/EHS persons.
SNIP
http://www.emfacts.com/2013/08/voodoo-science-will-not-solve-the-causality-problem-of-ehs/
Posted by at No comments:

U.S. WIRELESS INDUSTRY: ECONOMIC IMPACT




                                         
U.S. WIRELESS INDUSTRY: ECONOMIC IMPACT 


1. The wireless industry directly/indirectly employs more than 3.8 million Americans, which accounts for 2.6% of all U.S. employment. In addition, wireless employees are paid 65% higher than the national average for other workers.1

2. The "app" economy employs 519,000 developers and related jobs2 and grew from almost zero to nearly $10 billion in four years.3 

3. The top 10 app economy states, ranked by economic impact (per million each year), are: CA ($8,241); WA ($2,671); NY ($2,313); TX ($1,183); MA ($1,143); NJ ($1,087); GA ($1,062); IL ($847); VA ($788); PA ($632).4

4. The U.S. wireless industry is valued at $195.5 billion, which is larger than publishing, agriculture, hotels and lodging, air transportation, motion picture and recording and motor vehicle manufacturing industry segments. It rivals the computer system design service and oil and gas extraction industries.5

5. The economic impact of bringing 500 MHz of spectrum (per the FCC's National Broadband Plan) to market by 2020 is $87 billion increase in U.S. GDP; at least 350,000 new U.S. jobs; additional $23.4 billion in government revenues; and $13.1 billion increase in wireless applications and content sales.6

6. The U.S. wireless industry accounted for $33 billion in productivity improvements for U.S. businesses in nine categories. Over the next 10 years, these efficiency gains will be worth more than $1.4 trillion.7

7. Total private sector jobs fell by 5.3 million between April 2007 and June 2011, but the U.S. wireless industry added almost 1.6 million new jobs in the same time period.8 

8. Continued 4G wireless network investments could mean investments of $25 billion to $53 billion, bringing $73 billion to $151 billion in GDP growth and provide 371,000 to 771,000 jobs by 2016.9

9. For every $1 invested in wireless broadband, it will create an additional $7-10 for U.S. GDP.10

10. Mobile Internet advertising was $1.2 billion from Jan-June 2012, which was almost double the $7.7 billion for the same period in 2011.11 

11. The global market for wireless accessories was $34 billion in 2011 and is expected to grow to $50.2 billion by 2015.12

12. Businesses spent more than $1.9 billion in 2010 on non-handsets (e.g. tablets, notebooks, e-readers); by 2014, it will be more than $5 billion on non-handsets.13

13. Mobile music revenues were $3.1 billion in 2010 and are projected to reach $5.5 billion by 2015.14

14. U.S. providers reported making capital investments of more than $30 billion from December 2011-December 2012.15 U.S. Wireless invested approximately $94 per subscriber while providers in the rest of the world only spent $16 per subscriber. 16
Last Updated: May 2013
http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/AID/10377
Posted by at No comments:

Conferència Contaminación electromagnética



23/11/2013

ConferènciaContaminación electromagnética

JORNADA TÉCNICA sobre Medioambiente y Salud. Sábado, 23 de NOVIEMBRE de 2013
Aportaciones científicas.

Annex: JORNADA TÉCNICA sobre Medioambiente y Salud. Sábado, 23 de NOVIEMBRE de 2013  (pdf 697.83KB
JORNADA TÉCNICA  sobre Medioambiente y Salud.
Sábado, 23 de NOVIEMBRE de 2013
PROGRAMA
 10:00 h
Aportaciones  científicas.
“Los Efectos sobre la Salud de los Campos Electromagnéticos”
Dr. Olle Johansson. Profesor Asociado, Director de la Unidad de Dermatología Experimental. Departamento de Neurociencias del Instituto Karolinska (Estocolmo).
11:30 h
“Cambios  fisiopatológicos  y  posibles terapias  frente  a  los  campos electromagnéticos”
 Dra. Carme Valls i Llobet . Especialista en Medicina Interna y Endocrinología.Directora de “Mujer, Salud y Calidad de Vida”  del  CAPS (Centro de Análisis y Programas en Barcelona).
 12:30 h
Mesa redonda a cargo del  Dr. O. Johansson. Dra. C. Valls. Dr. E. Mayayo, Patólogo  en la Facultad de Medicina de la  Universidad Rovira i Virgili , Tarragona (España).  Sr. J. Cortes. Abogado.
 Promovido por la Asociación APQUIRA   associacioapquira.org/2013/07/20/jornada-tecnica-sobre-medioambiente-y-salud-2013/
Al final de la entrada del link de arriba de la ASOCIACIÓN APQUIRA ENCONTRARÉIS UN FORMULARIO PARA LA INSCRIPCIÓN GRATUITA.
Con la colaboración de:
Ajuntament de Barcelon
Col-lectivu Ronda     http://www.cronda.com
CAPS      http://www.caps.cat/
ASSOCIACIÓ OIKOS AMBIENTAL MATARO   http://www.oikosambiental.org/
Esta entrada fue publicada en Otros por Santi. Guarda el enlace permanente.
PROGRAMME
9:30 h
Verification of Credentials and Participants' registration.
9:45 h
Welcome and presentation of day's session.
 10:00 h Scientific Contribution.
"Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields".
Olle Johansson, Ph. D., Associate Professor, Director of the Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, at Karolinska Institute, in Stockholm (Sweden).
11:00 h a 11:30 h -Coffee break
11:30 h
"Pathophysiological Changes and Possible Therapies against Electromagnetic Fields".
Carme Valls i Llobet, M.D. is boardcertified in both Internal Medicine and Endocrinology. Director of "Women, Health and Quality of Life at the Centre of Analysis and Health Programmes (CAPS) in Barcelona
12:30
Round Table given by O. Johansson, Ph.D. C. Valls, M.D. E. Mayayo, Ph.D., Pathologist in the Faculty of Medicine at University Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona, Spain) and Mr. J. Cortés, Lawyer.

Lloc:  Lugar: Aula Ronda—Collectivo Ronda - Dirección: C/ Sant Pere més Alt, 59—59 bis - Localidad: 08010—BARCELONA
Horari:  Horaro: DE 9:30 hrs. A 13:30 hrs.
Organitza:  Organiza: Promovido por la Asociación APQUIRA y con la colaboración del Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, el Colectivo Ronda y la Asociación Oikos Ambiental -Mataró.
Imparteix:  ImPonencias a cargo del Ph Olle Johansson y la Dra. Carme Vallls. Mesa Redonda a cargo del Dr. O. Johansson. Dra. C. Valls. Dr. E. Mayayo, Patólogo en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Rovira i Virgili ,Tarragona (SP). Sr.J. Cortes. Abogado
Preu:  Precio: NSCRIPCIÓN GRATUITA: Por e-mail o rellenando el boletín de inscripción desde la página Web de APQUIRA - Ver programa para detalle en el anexo.
Límit d'inscripció:  18/11/2013
Si necesitais más información o nos queréis hacer alguna consulta en relación a este acto , no dudéis en utilizar el formulario Contactar y os contestaremos lo antes posible.

Si necessiteu més informació, o ens voleu adreçar alguna consulta en relació a aquest acte, no dubteu a utilitzar el formulari Contactar, i us respondrem el més aviat possible
Annex: JORNADA TÉCNICA sobre Medioambiente y Salud. Sábado, 23 de NOVIEMBRE de 2013  (pdf 697.83KB)
Enllaç:  JORNADA TÉCNICA sobre Medioambiente y Salud. Sábado, 23 de NOVIEMBRE de 2013 
http://www.oikosambiental.org/agenda_detall_1/_CAFjuKR7gbVIFNT1PI6tkqZc8x5rg4x-DdDKbnfIbazvc-DZGarfG-q1_2iYxIFrSG6uRn57VyI
Posted by at No comments:

You Won’t BELIEVE What’s Going On at Fukushima Right Now


You Won’t BELIEVE What’s Going On at Fukushima Right Now

Posted on August 1, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Tepco Has No Idea How to Stabilize the Reactors

You’ve heard bad news about Fukushima recently.
But it’s worse than you know.
The Wall Street Journal notes that radiation levels outside the plant are likely higher than inside the reactor:
NRA [Nuclear Regulation Authority] officials said highly contaminated water may be leaking into the soil from a number of trenches, allowing the water to seep into the site’s groundwater and eventually into the ocean.
***
Both radioactive substances are considered harmful to health. An NRA official said Monday that the very high levels were likely to be even higher than those within the reactor units themselves.
***
It was by far the highest concentration of radioactivity detected since soon after Japan’s March 2011 earthquake and tsunami ….
How could it be more radioactive outside the nuclear reactors? The reactors have lost containment, and experts have no idea where the nuclear cores are.
And the problems which have been detected at ground-level are only the tip of the iceberg.  Japan Times points out:
Cesium levels in water under Fukushima No. 1 plant soar the deeper it gets, Tepco reveals
***
Tepco found 950 million becquerels of cesium and 520 million becquerels of beta ray-emitting radioactive substances, including strontium, in the water from 13 meters [~43 feet] underground.
Water from 1 meter down contained 340 million becquerels, and a sample from 7 meters down contained 350 million becquerels.
***
Cesium, a metallic element, is subject to gravity.
Yomiuri reports that highly-radioactive groundwater could start coming to the surface at the Fukushima plant:
TEPCO spokesman Noriyuki Imaizumi revealed the water level of the tainted groundwater in a test well located on the sea side of the No. 2 reactor has risen rapidly.
“If the water level continues to rise, it could reach the ground surface,” Imaizumi, an acting general manager of the company’s nuclear power-related division, said at a press conference Monday.
According to the company, the water level has risen about 70 centimeters over the past 20 days.
***
To prevent contaminated groundwater from leaking into the sea, TEPCO is working to reinforce the ground foundation of seawalls. The rising water level in the test well means the measures to prevent leakage have been working.
However, the company apparently failed to give much thought to the fact that the groundwater would have nowhere else to go ….
Even Tepco admits that the groundwater problems are due to a lack of planning.  NHK points out:
[Tepco] learnt on Wednesday that its efforts to prevent radiation-tainted groundwater from seeping into the sea are failing.
***
TEPCO has been trying to solidify the embankment of the crippled power plant.
***
TEPCO says water levels in one of the contaminated wells have risen by about 1 meter since the work began in early July.
It says this is likely the result of its work to solidify the ground  [to a depth of 16 meters], using chemicals.
The company says soil up to 2 meters below the ground cannot be hardened, and water may be seeping out.
In addition, a top expert says that radioactive water could be flowing beneath the seafloor … and couldwell up outside of the port “containment” zone:
Atsunao Marui, head of the Groundwater Research Group at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, said, “Groundwater also flows beneath the seafloor, so it’s possible that contaminated groundwater could spring up outside the port.”
Marui added that water outside the port also needs to be carefully checked.
Reuters notes that the bolts in Fukushima’s tanks will corrode in just a few years, and a plant workers reveal — “Tepco says it doesn’t know how long tanks will hold”:
Experts say Tepco is attempting the most ambitious nuclear clean-up in history, even greater than the Chernobyl disaster ….
***
Radioactive water that cools the reactors …]mixes with some 400 tonnes of fresh groundwater pouring into the plant daily.
Workers have built more than 1,000 tanks ….
With more than 85 percent of the 380,000 tonnes of storage capacity filled, Tepco has said it could run out of space.
The tanks are built from parts of disassembled old containers brought from defunct factories and put together with new parts, workers from the plant told Reuters. They say steel bolts in the tanks will corrode in a few years.
Tepco says it does not know how long the tanks will hold.
Asahi writes:
[Tepco's] appallingly shoddy handling of radioactive water that is leaking from the crippled plant into the sea.
***
At the No. 3 reactor, highly radioactive “mystery steam” has been spotted.
The fact that radioactive substances are still being released into the ground, the sea and the air is irrefutable proof that the nuclear disaster of March 2011 is not over. The responsible parties must take this situation gravely ….
The utility’s glaring ineptitude with crisis management was noted right from the start of the Fukushima disaster.
***
We have zero faith in the utility’s reliability as an operator of any nuclear power plant. In fact, allowing the company to handle nuclear energy is simply out of the question.
The entire company now needs to be focused on preventing radioactive substances from escaping into the environment.
Yomiuri argues that the government agency overseeing Fukushima has no idea what’s going on:
The Nuclear Regulation Authority, which oversees safety management at the nuclear plant, decided to set up a working team to analyze conditions concerning contamination.
But the NRA’s actions have also been badly delayed. At a meeting Monday, an expert said the NRA “still can’t grasp the risks posed by the current situation.”
As Enformable points out, top Japanese officials are finally calling for Tepco to be fired:
In case one hasn’t paid attention the constant stream of international experts who have called for TEPCO to be removed  as the organization in charge of decommissioning the crippled Fukushima Daiichi reactors, Shunichi Tanaka, chairman of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority has also called for Tokyo Electric to be removed. “It is simply too big for one company to handle,” said Tanaka, at a press conference Wednesday. “Placing all the burden (of controlling the site) on them won’t solve the problem.” 
Remember, an official Japanese government investigation concluded that the Fukushima accident was a“man-made” disaster,  caused by “collusion” between government and Tepco and bad reactor design.  And yet the Japanese government has allowed the culprit – Tepco – to oversee the “cleanup”, in the same way that the U.S. government allowed BP to oversee the “cleanup” of the Gulf oil spill even though BP’s criminal negligence caused the spill in the first place.
ABC Australia reports:
It’s taken about two-and-a-half years, but it seems the Japanese government is finally losing patience with the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant. The reason: its haphazard approach to stabilising the complex. Last week it was unexplained steam rising from the shattered remains of the building housing the melted reactor number three. This week it’s TEPCO’s admission that radioactive water from the plant has probably been leaking into the Pacific for the last three months.
Indeed, Asahi notes:
The operator of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant sat on its hands for more than two years despite having pledged to seal a leaking hole in a turbine building ….
NHK writes:
[Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide] Suga told reporters after the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday that the government views this as a grave matter.
Tepco’s own advisors are also blasting the operator of the stricken nuclear plant.  AFP points out:
Foreign nuclear experts on Friday blasted the operator of Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant, with one saying its lack of transparency over toxic water leaks showed “you don’t know what you’re doing”… “appears that you are not keeping the people of Japan informed. These actions indicate that you don’t know what you are doing …you do not have a plan and that you are not doing all you can to protect the environment and the people.” [said Dale Klein, Former NRC Chairman and Tepco advisory committee member]
How could this happen?   Doesn’t the ocean dilute radiation to the point it is rendered harmless?  No, actually:
Japan Times notes:
Fukushima … seems to lurch from one problem to the next ….
***
When the situation is so bad that Shunichi Tanaka, the NRA chairman, is stating in a press conference, with regard to water leaks, that “if you have any better ideas, we’d like to know,” it should be clear that Fukushima No. 1 still requires the upmost attention.
The chairman of the NRA also says (via the New York Times):
Considering the state of the plant, it’s difficult to find a solution today ortomorrow… That’s probably not satisfactory to many of you. But that’s the reality we face after an accident like this… We don’t truly know whether that will work….
Indeed, technology doesn’t currently even exist to stabilize and clean up Fukushima, and Tepco – withno financial incentive to actually fix things – has only been pretending to clean it up. And see this.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/fukushima-worse-than-you-know.html
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)