Is it safe for any of Fukushima's 160,000 nuclear refugees to return to home?

A Tamura resident used to harvest organic fruit from her orchard. 
Her house was decontaminated; her orchard was not. 
Authorities say it is ‘out of category’ – it does not fit  the categories  in the decontamination plan.
(Greenpeace: Fukushima's Returning Residents 2013)

Is it possible to decontaminate irradiated areas around the (still unstable) Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant and make them safely inhabitable again? 

In March 2011, a series of hydrogen explosions amid nuclear meltdowns (not acknowledged by the Japanese government until June 2011) at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant resulted in sudden evacuations of residents who lived  in communities around the plant.  

The first evacuation zones were simply concentrically drawn around the plant complex.  

March 11, March 12, and March 15, 2011 revised evacuation zones. (Image: Nature.com)

However when it was realized that radiation was not dispersing concentrically around the plant, but deviated because of winds, and gathering in hot spots (as far south as metropolitan Tokyo), the evacuation map was redrawn.  Iitate, a farming village 40 km northwest of the nuclear plant, showed  higher much higher radiation readings than some places adjacent to the plant.  The hot spots were created where snow, rain, and dust delivered radiation to the ground. 

Revised evacuation zone on April 11th, 2011. (Image: Wikipedia)

The evacuation zone, altered several times since 3/11, now includes eleven towns and extends up to 45 km (northwest) from the nuclear meltdowns. It is divided into three categories: a "no-return zone" (above 50 mSv of radiation dose per year); "no-residence zone" (above 20 mSv of radiation dose per year); and "zones being prepared for lift of evacuation order."

In the "no-residence zone," residents will be allowed to  enter the areas and return to their homes on a temporary basis, but they cannot stay overnight.  In "zones being prepared for lift of evacuation order," residents will be allowed to visit and to reopen stores or engage in farming.

In April 2012, the towns of Tamura, Kawauchi, and Minamisoma were reclassified. Tamura (10 miles west of the nuclear plant) was redesignated as being prepared for lift of evacuation order.  Kawauchi (15 miles west) was redesignated as two areas: a "No-residence zone" and a zone being prepared for lift of evacuation order.   And Minamisoma (16 miles north) was reclassified into three zones.

In July 2012, Iitate was also reclassified into three zones. Decontamination work was scheduled for houses, but not farmland.  Not surprisingly, since most of the former inhabitants were farmers,  Iitate remained a "ghost town" by December  2012.  Only a nursing home housed permanent residents (who had opted out of the April 2011 mass evacuation).

Despite the lifting of the evacuation order, running water, electricity, sewage systems and other infrastructure were not restored and hospitals and schools remain closed.  Proprietors of small businesses dependent on ruined local economies had lost their livelihoods. Except for decontamination projects, there is little employment available.  

In December 2012, Minamisoma  remained partly deserted.  Of the 70,000 residents (outside the exclusion zone) who voluntarily evacuated; one third have not returned.  Many in Minamisoma who did not voluntarily evacuate told filmmaker Ian Thomas Ash (In the Grey Zone, A2-B-C) that they could not afford to leave without economic assistance.

 In July 2013, authorities announced the preparation of resumption of utilities in Tamura, to ready for the return of residents. 

Greenpeace has questioned the feasibility of safe return, citing radiation monitoring that reveals inconsistent decontamination in Tamura: 

A recent Greenpeace survey found that decontamination programs have been effective for houses and many parts of major routes in the city.

But some lesser-used public roads, large areas of farmland and mountain areas still have high contamination levels, said Jan Vande Putte, Greenpeace radiation protection adviser.

He said the cleaned houses and roads were like “islands” and “corridors” in an otherwise polluted region.

It would be “unrealistic” to ask residents to stay off contaminated roads and farmland, he said.

“They can be exposed to high levels of radiation” if they returned home, he said...

“It requires enormous dedication to reduce radiation levels on roads, on houses and farmland,” he said.

But Vande Putte added that radiation levels around houses have been “significantly lowered” after decontamination work.

Residents should be given adequate information before deciding whether to return to their homes, he said, and government financial assistance should continue regardless of their decision on going back.

Contaminated soil in temporary storage (plastic bags) in Tamura; long-term storage hasn’t been worked out. 
17,800 tons of contaminated soil and leaves remain in plastic bags piled along streets and in fields.

(Greenpeace: "Photo essay: Tamura, Japan the terrible dilemma for residents")

Authorities also plan to reopen Katsurao, Namie, Kawamata, Tomioka, and the no-go parts of Iiate,  although the evacuation order will continue through 2016 and 2017.  Most of the 83,000 nuclear refugees from these highly irradiated towns within the 20-km exclusion zone now doubt they will ever be able or want to return.

David McNeill and Miguel Quintana explore issues related to the ambitious decontamination and repopulation plan  in "Mission Impossible. What Future Fukushima?"  (ミッション・インポッシブル　福島に未来は ) published at The Asia-Pacific Journal.

At the top of concerns: uncertainty; contradictory monitoring reports; conflicts regarding what constitutes "safe" radiation limits; and how to deal with massive collections of irradiated soil and debris:

Nobody knows for certain how dangerous the radiation is.

Radiation levels in most areas of Fukushima have dropped by around 40 percent since the disaster began, according to central government estimates, but those figures are widely disbelieved. Official monitoring posts almost invariably give lower readings than hand-held Geiger counters, the result of a deliberate strategy of misinformation, say critics.

The disagreement over real radiation levels is far from academic. Local municipalities are desperate for evacuees to return and must decide on what basis, in terms of exposure to radiation, evacuation orders will be lifted. If they unilaterally declare their areas safe, evacuees could be forced to choose between returning home and losing vital monthly compensation from Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), operator of the ruined Daiichi complex.

For the refugees, a worrying precedent has already been set in the municipality of Date, which lies outside the most contaminated areas. In December 2012, the local government lifted a “special evacuation” order imposed on 129 households because of a hotspot, arguing that radiation doses had fallen below 20 millisieverts per year (20 mSv/yr). Three months later the residents lost the $1000 a month they were receiving from Tepco for “psychological stress.”

...The Fukushima cleanup, however, faces another, perhaps insurmountable challenge: securing sites to store contaminated soil, leaves and sludge. Many landowners balk at hosting “interim” dumps – in principle for three years – until the central government builds a mid-term storage facility. Local governments throughout Japan have refused to accept the toxic waste, meaning it will probably stay in Fukushima for good. The waste is stored under blue tarpaulins across much of the prefecture, sometimes close to schools and homes.

This irradiated soil and leaf storage site is in Naraha. 

 (Photo: Issei Kato/Reuters via WSJ)

Green Action: MOX (mixed plutonium uranium) Fuel Shipment Arrives in Japan with No End-Use Determined

Via Kyoto-based Green Action: 

 27 June 2013, Takahama Town, Fukui Prefecture, Japan-- A shipment of MOX (mixed plutonium and uranium oxide) fuel arrived at Kepco’s Takahama nuclear power plant today located in Fukui Prefecture facing the Japan Sea.

Today’s shipment violates the Japan Atomic Energy Commission's determination, issued in 2003, requiring utilities to specify the end-use of MOX fuel before it is imported.

Kepco has not been given permission to restart its Takahama nuclear power plant. On top of that, the Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority
(NRA) has not even established post-Fukushima accident regulatory standards for MOX fuel and its use.

According to the IAEA, unirradiated MOX fuel is direct-use nuclear weapons material. This shipment adds yet another 900kg (approx.) to the already 960kg of unused plutonium in MOX fuel located at 5 nuclear
power plants in Japan.

As of today, over 70 nations have opposed MOX fuel shipments and past shipments of separated plutonium. Japan, the UK, and France have neglected to undertake an environmental impact assessment on Japanese nuclear shipments. Furthermore, no compensation plan exists for damages in the event of an accident, and emergency planning is grossly inadequate.

Many Japanese prefectures are also on the shipment route. Citizens of local governments which face the Japan Sea have petitioned Kepco and the Japanese government for information on emergency planning and compensation for damages in the event of such an accident.

On 26 June, the Joint Action for Nuclear Free Korea composed of 78 groups including the nationwide Korean Federation of Environmental Movement (KFEM) issued a statement opposing the MOX shipment.

“Crucial quality control data for the MOX fuel has not been released by the French fuel fabricator Areva SA. Not even Kepco, its client, has been given details on the kind of impurities in the fuel and other important data that could affect the fuel safety. The French nuclear authority's remit does not include checking the quality of foreign fuel. Therefore, only Areva is privy to that information” stated Aileen Mioko Smith, executive director of Green Action.

----------
References:
12, April 2013
Joint letter to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry regarding MOX fuel
shipment to Japan
http://www.greenaction-japan.org/internal/130412_MOX_US_State_Letter.pdf
5 March 2013
Letters sent to countries potentially on the route of the MOX fuel
shipment
http://www.greenaction-japan.org/internal/130305_Letter_en_route_MOX.pdf

Could studies of the decades of radioactive (plutonium) contamination at Sellafield, UK help in understanding Fukushima radiation risks?

(Via Shut Sellafield: Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tim_d/)

Map of nuclear radiation at Sellafield, in northwest England, just south of Scotland, on the Irish Sea: "In 1990 a government funded project used helicopters to survey radiation "hot spots" in the area. The map (above) shows the radiation levels are highest (red and brown) around the estuary of the Rivers Esk and Mite and around Sellafield itself." (Image: http://www.lakestay.co.uk/hot.htm)

This week the UK government gave approval to NuGen (owned by Spanish multinational Iberdrola and French multinational GDF Suez)* to construct a new nuclear plant at Sellafield, a plutonium manufacturing and nuclear waste reprocessing complex plagued with a history of accidents, radiation (plutonium) contamination, and tons of nuclear waste:

...Britain has held firm in the post Fukushima-era to the advancement of nuclear power, unlike many large European economies like Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Belgium, all of whom are either abandoning their nuclear power capacities or have voted not to begin building nuclear facilities to begin with in the wake of the Japanese disaster.

Germany will be phasing out its nuclear power plants in favour of renewable energy by 2022 and Switzerland is following suit in 2034. Belgium has said it will shutter its oldest plants by 2015, with the remainder to come offline by 2025, dependent on whether the country can find alternative power sources. And Italy voted overwhelmingly in a summer referendum not to even start a nuclear programme.

Even Japan has opted for a 40-year nuclear phase out plan.

The announcement of the construction of the multi-billion-pound nuclear fuel plant has followed the closure of an identical plant, shut down because it was unfit.

The UK built the Sellafield nuclear complex in the 1940's for the same reason as the US constructed the toxic Hanford nuclear complex in Washington State and the Soviets constructed the Mayak complex in Siberia: to produce nuclear weapons. As with Hanford and Mayak, the region around Sellafield, located in England's largest national park has become a nuclear waste dump. The park, which includes the Lake District, is a tourist destination.

For decades, Sellafield dumped radioactive waste by pipeline into the Irish Sea. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) reported Sellafield has deposited an estimated 200 kilograms (441 lb) of plutonium into the marine sediment of the Irish Sea. Cattle and fish are contaminated with plutonium-239 and caesium-137 from Sellafield.

Sellafield, where Japanese nuclear energy companies sent nuclear waste for reprocessing, also produced Technetium-99, a radioactive element created from reprocessing, which Sellafield also discharges into the sea. Between 1952 and 2009, Sellafield discharged more than 47,855 terabecquerel of cesium-137 and strontium-90, two of the most dangerous radioactive elements to human health, according to calculations based on data from the U.K. Environment Agency and the Journal of Radiological Protection.

In 1983, high radioactive discharges of ruthenium and rhodium 106 resulted in the closure of beaches along a 10-mile stretch of coast in Cumbria, along with warnings against swimming in the sea. Greenpeace protested the discharges by attempting to cap the pipeline gushing radioactive waste into the sea. Their Geiger counters indicated radioactivity at 1,500 times the "normal" level.

An open pit has been used to store radioactive waste, including over a ton of plutonium (some from the Tokai Mura plant in Japan). The pool is not watertight and has been leaking.

A 1997 UK Ministry of Health report stated that children living close to Sellafield had twice as much plutonium in their teeth as children living more than 100 miles (160 km) from the nuclear complex; afterwards a UK official stated that the plutonium did not present a health risk. However, instances of leukemia in children who live on the English and Irish coasts reflect anomalies: the rate of childhood leukemia in the area near Sellafield exceeds the national average by ten times; one child in sixty in Seascale, the village of nearest the plant, will die of of leukemia.

Both the Irish and Norwegian governments have sought the closure of the facility.

On Aug. 3, the government (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)) owned MOX (plutonium) fuel plant, subsidized by British taxpayers, was closed. Its primary customers were Japanese nuclear plants, including Fukushima Dai-Ichi:

"The Hamaoka plant, owned by Chubu, the intended recipient of the first fuel, is currently closed awaiting extensive reinforcement work. Following Chubu, Tepco [Tokyo Electric Power Company] were destined to take 50% of the plant output and they as owner of the Fukushima plants are clearly facing the most extreme challenges."

Speculation about the future of the plant has been rife for months, as it became clear that the Japanese nuclear industry was unlikely to recover after Fukushima.

The NDA said: "[We have] concluded that in order to ensure that the UK taxpayer does not carry a future financial burden from [Sellafield Mox plant] that the only reasonable course of action is to close [the plant] at the earliest practical opportunity."

The NDA said it would continue to store Japanese plutonium safely, and "further develop discussions with the Japanese customers on a responsible approach to support the Japanese utilities' policy for the reuse of their material".

Sellafield still dumps eight million liters of radioactive nuclear waste into the Irish sea—every day.

How has this radioactive (especially plutonium) contamination affected fish and agricultural food products from the region surrounding Sellafield? When did cancers, including leukemia, begin to spike? Is the UK keeping and sharing longitudinal records on radiation levels and correlating these with cancers and other disorders (heart disease) correlated with nuclear radiation exposure? This kind of information might be helpful to residents of Fukushima and Japan, many whom express concern at plutonium exposure from MOX fuel, which was manufactured at Sellafield and used at Fukushima.

The Sellafield Nuclear Complex:

• REPROCESSING: 2 Plants - B205 Magnox, responsible for gross discharges and historic enviromental contamination. THORP, opened1994, adding greatly to discharges. Failing to meet 10 year target of 7000 tonnes. No new overseas contracts.

• VITIRFICATION: Opened 1991. Subsequent poor performance and accident rate. Third production line being constructed after original lines failed to meet yearly targets.

• ENCAPSULATION: 2 Plants. Drumming solid and sludge intermediate level wastes from historic and current operations. At least 30 years before any UK final disposal site for wastes.

• MOX: 2 Plants. Demonstration facility (MDF) producing 8 tonnes MOX fuel per year since 1993 for Europe and Japan. New 120t plant (SMP) not yet licensed to operate due to concerns on justification and viability. No plans to use MOX fuel in UK power stations.

• REACTORS: 4xMagnox 50MW. Operating 25 years beyond original life-span, until recently producers of Plutonium for UK weapons

* In December, 2014, Toshiba (Westinghouse's parent company) bought Iberdrola's stake in the NuGen Sellafield consortium. Hitachi acquired the Horizon nuclear project in 2012.

Some sources:  (Articles dated before 2008 are cites in Marilynne Robinson's meticulously researched Mother Country: Britain, The Welfare State, and Nuclear Pollution, published in 1989):

• "Dublin demands Sellafield action" (Ian Black, The Guardian, Feb. 18, 1984).
• "More pollution found on coast near Sellafield" (The Guardian, March 10, 1984).
• "'Plutonium food' sought for children" (Richard Evans, The Times, May 21, 1985).
• "Shut this open sewer" (New Scientist, Feb. 27, 1986).
• "A lot of fuss about a few millisieverts" (Sharon Kingman, New Scientist, May 15, 1986).
• "Majority say No to nuclear power" (Steve Vines, The Observer, Sept. 14, 1986).
• "Minister admits total failure of Sellafield 'MOX' plant" (Geoffrey Lean, March 9, 2008).
• "Ministers gamble on new £6bn Sellafield plant" (Steve Connor, Oct. 10, 2011).
• "Toshiba pays £85m for stake in NuGen to build nuclear plant at Sellafield" (The Telegraph, Dec. 24, 2013). 
• "NuGen agree plans to build first new UK nuclear plant" (The Telegraph, June 30, 2014). 

Environmentalist Watchdog Groups:

• Shut Sellafield

• Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment

• People Against WYLFA-B (The campaign against a new nuclear power station at Wylfa, Anglesey (Cymraeg: Yr ymgyrch yn erbyn atomfa newydd yn y Wylfa, Ynys Môn)

"Waste: The Nuclear Nightmare" sheds light on low-level radioactive contamination in Washington State, Russia, Europe (& holds insights for Japan)

*"Waste: The Nuclear Nightmare" airs Oct. 16, 2011 on Sundance Channel*

Waste: The Nuclear Nightmare spotlights contaminated regions in Washington State (which has the highest incidence of cancer in the U.S.) and Russia, and overviews the problem of nuclear waste that also hangs over Japan, the UK, Germany, and France.

...Some notes from the film...

Filmmaker Eric Guéret and producer Laure Noualhat open their 2009 film overviewing how nuclear nations have strewn nuclear waste into oceans for decades. Some ocean bottoms have become nuclear dumping grounds, covered with radioactive waste after the barrels ripped open.

Mike Townsley of Greenpeace International describes the rusted radioactive waste barrels and answers his own question: "Where’s the radioactive waste? It’s in the environment. It becomes part of the food chain.

"Everybody did this. The British. The French. The Americans. The Russians. In less than 50 years, they've buried over 100 metric tons of nuclear waste in various oceans."

"It took ten years for nuclear activists to build worldwide support for a 1993 UN Treaty forbid dumping radioactive waste."


Hanford Nuclear Complex, along the Columbia River in Washington State, 1960
Hanford Nuclear Reservation (HNR), the world's first nuclear manufacturing site, is one of the most contaminated places in the world. In 1942, the Roosevelt administration chose Washington State as a site to develop radioative components for atomic bombs because they wanted a remote area to minimize fatalities in case of an accident.

At its peak, the massive complex (half the size of the state of Maryland) employed 51,000 people at 9 nuclear reactors and plutonium factories. A breeder reactor was built in 1943 to produce plutonium for the Nagasaki bomb. No one was allowed to know how many leaks, accidents or fires took place at Hanford.

"This was all secret. It was a US Army operation."

Without the consent of nearby residents (farmers and members of the Yakima tribe, the indigenous people whose territory included Washington state), plant operators used water from a nearby river for plant cooling and discharged the used water right back into the river. Plant operators let people use the river without telling families of the dangers to which they were exposed.

(Exposure map for the "Green Run" U.S. Air Force nuclear radiation experiment at Hanford Nuclear Reservation that released somewhere between 7,000 and 12,000 curies of iodine-131 into the air on December 2-3, 1949. (Image: Toxipedia.org)

The plant produced 1,500 billion liters of nuclear waste that operators dumped, contaminating the Columbia River ecosystem. They poured liquid waste directly into trenches dug in the earth and put 210 million liters of radioactive and chemical waste into 177 concrete tanks they buried in the ground. By the 1960's, some tanks were already leaking, and now 67 tanks have failed, leaking 4 million liters of waste, thereby contaminating the water table. In 2002, Strontium 90 was found present in Columbia River fish.

The film explains that, besides Hanford, the US government built a dozen nuclear sites in the U.S. to support the Manhattan Project, then shifts to a contaminated region in Russia that even most people in Russia did not know about until decades after the disasters, and that most people worldwide still don't know about...

In 1976, news leaked about an nuclear waste explosion in 1957 at the Mayak nuclear weapons complex (built by Gulag-era prison laborers in the eastern Urals and probably modeled after Hanford; U-2 spy plane pilot Gary Powers' destination when he was shot down in Soviet airspace in 1960). The explosion at Mayak, a Soviet plutonium production site, was the worst nuclear accident in the world before Chernobyl, and one of three catastrophic nuclear accidents at Mayak.

Villages in a previously idyllic region were contaminated by the fallout. The disaster was kept secret; no one could see the radiation, so didn't understand what had happened. The Soviet government buried the harvest, saying it was contaminated but they wouldn't explain how this happened; and dumped nuclear waste into lakes, which contaminated the Techa River which goes to Siberia.

Many villages were evacuated. Two thirds of the population have left. Now village houses are empty because almost everyone who stayed have died. Cancers. Heart conditions. Diabetes. All linked to radioactive contamination of the environment: tritrium and cesium-137 has transformed affected soil into radioactive waste. Plutonium 239 and 240, which creates the explosive component of nuclear bombs, is now part of the river.

One lonely peasant who refused to leave says, “When I see the empty houses, I feel the same anguish as after a bombing.”

Others who chose or had no alternative but to remain say they are waiting to die of cancer and are tested every year: “They are using us as guinea pigs.” Last year I lost my son. He would have been 48. He died of cancer. We live like guinea pigs. It’s our fate.”

The Soviet Union tried to keep the Mayak explosion at its top secret plant and the consequences of radioactive fallout secret. It wasn't until dissident scientist Zhores Mendedev reported the accident in 1976 that it became known to the outside world. The Gorbachev government confirmed this a decade later. With Glasnost, people began to talk...

A Russian interviewee in the film explains: “It’s dangerous to our entire society. The nuclear industry started to let its secrets go. There were rumor that wrong-doings were hidden; we started talking about Mayak. Then Yeltsin came to power. Things hushed up again."

All nuclear energy plants and weapons plants discharge nuclear waste, so the issue of low-level radiation contamination is problematic for the UK, France, Germany, Japan and other countries that have nuclear energy industries and also for nations that produce nuclear weapons.

The AREVA nuclear waste reprocessing plant in La Hague has long been dumping nuclear waste into the English Channel. Iodine 129 is being detected as far as the Arctic. Seaweed, shellfish and mollusks are contaminated because the adjacent seabed has been turned into a nuclear waste dump. Krypton-85 is released into the atmosphere and carried by winds all over Europe.

The largest utilities company in Europe, France's EDF, sends "radioactive material" (recycled uranium) by train in metal containers for storage at an open-air car park in Seversk, Siberia [formerly a secret "closed city" where there are several nuclear reactors, plants for reprocessing uranium and plutonium as well as storage and production facilities for nuclear weapons].

In Japan, the US and the UK, the usual way to deal with nuclear waste is to keep it in large storage pools (a hazardous non-solution, as we now know from Fukushima). If the pools lose their water, the waste fuel heats up and catches fire.

Both Germany and Switzerland pronounced storage pools unsafe. Germany has moved nuclear waste into concrete into hillsides or thick concrete buildings.

Now the world has 450 nuclear waste storage pools spread across countries using nuclear power. Some have proposed storing nuclear waste at very deep depths in the earth, but is this efficient give the totality of costs of the nuclear industry, which would cease to exist without extensive taxpayer-funded subsidies?

It's misleading to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki high-level radiation models as a comparison with continuous external and internal low-level radiation exposure.

The French government's attitude towards nuclear energy might be likened to a state religion. The state almost wholly owns AREVA, the French nuclear corporation and biggest atomic operator in the world; therefore the French government pushes nuclear energy worldwide for its own profit and has failed to develop renewable sources of energy. Germany markedly contrasts with France: the broad public is not inhibited by the state from engaging in serious debate about the risks of nuclear energy production.

----------

More on the film from the Int. Panel of Fissile Materials blog:

On 20 February 2010 Greenpeace issued a call for a moratorium on shipments of reprocessed uranium from France to Russia. Activists had been repeatedly blocking rail shipments of the material from the La Hague reprocessing plant to Cherbourg port.

Parliamentary enquiry, government statements, Greenpeace actions are a few of the stunning consequences of a 100-minutes TV documentary Déchets - Le Cauchemar du Nucléaire (Waste - The Nuclear Nightmare) broadcast by the Franco-German station ARTE for the first time on 13 October 2009 and re-broadcast by various television stations since. The documentary presents the results of an investigation into nuclear waste management in the US, Russia, Germany and France. The authors Eric Guéret and Laure Noualhat were often accompanied by technicians of the French independent radiation-monitoring lab CRIIRAD.

They detected and measured radiation in many places where they went, from the Columbia river close to the US nuclear weapons lab in Hanford to the Soviet counterpart Mayak in the Urals. Some of the most remarkable scenes include a Geiger counter that goes crazy under a publicly accessible bridge over the Techa river and a scene outside the French "plutonium factory" called reprocessing plant at La Hague. In the latter case a spokesman for operator AREVA, when asked about radiation levels in the fields outside the plant, stated after a long hesitation that he would not call this contamination, but "absence of impact" before stumbling: "Well, we'll redo that one..."

However, remarkably enough, the largest impact had a simple mass calculation that the journalists presented. Constantly facing the AREVA PR that states that 96% of the nuclear materials are "recycled" through the reprocessing scheme, the reporters inquired where the recovered uranium, roughly 95% of the mass of spent fuel, does end up. In fact, AREVA has been sending most of the reprocessed uranium (23,000 tons were still stored in France at the end of 2008), to Russia officially for re-enrichment.

In fact, even if all of that uranium had indeed been re-enriched, which is not the case, over 90% of the mass remains in Russia as enrichment tails. This material is waste, because there is absolutely no economic incentive to re-enrich it, in particular considering the hundreds of thousands of tons of "clean", first generation enrichment tails that are stored in Russia and in the other major enrichment countries, including in France (close to 260,000 tons at two sites).

The message that AREVA's "recycling" ratio had to be corrected from 95% to less than 10% of the original mass send a shockwave through the French political landscape. The minister of Environment asked for clarifications and the parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (OPECST) organized public hearings. During the hearings EDF has admitted that, apart from a period of about five years, 100% of the reprocessed uranium had been sent to Russia.

Between 2000 and approximately 2005 (the EDF representative was not certain) reprocessed uranium was sent to URENCO's Dutch plant that can re-enrich reprocessed uranium (contrary to URENCO's UK and German plants). EDF signed a contract with AREVA to use part of the Georges-Besse-2 plant, currently under construction, to enrich reprocessed uranium for a period of about 10 years starting in 2013. The French Nuclear Safety Authority ASN announced that by the end 2010 it will have finished studies into the potential requalification of reprocessed uranium as waste.

The full version of the film "Déchets - Le Cauchemar du Nucléaire", by Eric Guéret and Laure Noualhat (in French and German with English subtitles) is available online. ARTE-Editions has also published a 210-page book by Laure Noualhat with the same title (in French).

More on nuclear waste:

• "Top Ten Talking Points on the Environmental Impacts Caused by Reprocessing High-Level Radioactive Waste" (Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear, November 2008)

• Heart of America Northwest: The Public's Voice for Hanford's Cleanup

• "Hanford Nuclear Waste Still Poses Serious Risks"(Marc Pitzke, Spiegel Online, March 24, 2011) In-depth report on radioactive contamination, including the intentional release of radioactive clouds during an experiment by Hanford physicists that they called "Green Run."

• "Risky Nuclear Experiments on a Global Collision Course -- it's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Radioactive World!" (Dvija Michael Bertish, HOANW blog, Feb. 2011):

the states of New York, Connecticut and Vermont have sued the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over a federal policy that allows nuclear waste to be stored at a nuclear power plant for 60 years after it has been decommissioned. The three states challenge this policy because it allows long term storage of nuclear waste without environmental review. Most nuclear plants were developed without sufficient infrastructure for safe long term waste storage.

• "Analysis Triples U.S. Plutonium Waste Figures" (Matthew L. Wald, The New York Times, July 10, 2010)

• "Mayak: A 50-year tragedy" (Greenpeace, September 28, 2007)

• "The French Nuclear Industry Is Bad Enough in France; Let's Not Expand It to the U.S. -- Areva, France's nuclear industry, has a solid reputation, but a trail of radioactive waste and deaths in Africa follow its wake."(Linda Gunter, Alternet, March 23, 2009 - mentions the French use of leftover radioactive dirt (tailings) and rocks from 210 abandoned uranium mines in school playgrounds and ski resort parking lots.)

• Cheylabinsk: The Most Contaminated Spot on the Planet (This site contains information about Kyshtym-57, an environmental organization which is working to help radiation victims in the Chelyabinsk region; a film description and script from Chelyabinsk: The Most Contaminated Spot on the Planet, a documentary by Slawomir Grunberg.)

• Cheylabinsk: The Most Contaminated Spot on the Planet official film website:

"Nobody knows anything about us. Chernobyl happened, but that's Europe. The pollution reached Europe, and the whole world was upset. But us, out here in the backwoods of Russia? Nobody knows about it, nobody in the world cares about the fate we've sealed for ourselves here." - Farida Shaimardanova, Muslyumovo teacher

• "Urals Nuclear Disasters Contaminated 450,000 : Russia: Figure is given by officials in account of events at the Mayak atomic plant from 1948 to 1967. They say site could still pose hazards" (Richard Bourdreaux, The Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30, 1993)

EX-SKF: "Radioactive Landfill: Tokyo Metropolitan Government Has Been Doing It Since May"

Via EX-SKF blog: "Radioactive Landfill: Tokyo Metropolitan Government Has Been Doing It Since May":

Yokohama City residents had just enough time to get organized very quickly and were able to halt (for now) the start of dumping of radioactive sludge ashes into the ocean in their final processing facility at the end of Minami Honmoku Pier on Tokyo Bay.

Tokyo residents either did not have a chance to do so because they didn't know, or they didn't care.

It turns out that Tokyo Metropolitan government has been dumping sludge from its water purification plants and burned ashes from the sewer sludge from the sludge plants in its landfill in Tokyo Bay at least since late May. The huge landfill is right near the Haneda Airport. (Photo: Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Environment)

On June 3, Tokyo Metropolitan government announced the result of air radiation survey done on the landfill locations where the radioactive sludge and ashes were being dumped, and that's how some people (mostly bloggers as far as I've found) noticed it and wrote about it.

Asahi: Fukushima leader blasts Kan's plan to transform Fukushima into a nuclear waste dump

Noriyoshi Ohtsuki reports on the local response to former PM Kan's last-minute proposal before he left office: "Fukushima leader blasts nuclear waste site plan" at Asahi Japan Watch today:

A key business leader has lashed out at a government plan to construct an interim storage facility for radioactive waste in Fukushima Prefecture, site of an ongoing nuclear crisis, rather than in Tokyo.

Toshio Seya, a former banker and head of the Fukushima Chamber of Commerce and Industry, asked during a regular news conference on Aug. 30: "Why doesn't the government build (the proposed facility to store radioactive waste) in Tokyo's Odaiba district? After all, the beneficiary of nuclear power is Tokyo."

Dahr Jamali: Full Meltdown: Fukushima Called the 'Biggest Industrial Catastrophe in the History of Mankind'"

"Full Meltdown: Fukushima Called the 'Biggest Industrial Catastrophe in the History of Mankind': Scientific experts believe Japan's nuclear disaster to be far worse than governments are revealing to the public by Dahr Jamali, Al Jazeera:

"Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind," Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, told Al Jazeera...

"Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively."

TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of.

"The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"

Japan's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters finally admitted earlier this month that reactors 1, 2, and 3 at the Fukushima plant experienced full meltdowns.

TEPCO announced that the accident probably released more radioactive material into the environment than Chernobyl, making it the worst nuclear accident on record.

Meanwhile, a nuclear waste advisor to the Japanese government reported that about 966 square kilometres near the power station - an area roughly 17 times the size of Manhattan - is now likely uninhabitable.According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles".

"We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo," he said. "Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters."

Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well.

The hot particles on them can eventually lead to cancer.

"These get stuck in your lungs or GI tract, and they are a constant irritant," he explained, "One cigarette doesn't get you, but over time they do. These [hot particles] can cause cancer, but you can't measure them with a Geiger counter. Clearly people in Fukushima prefecture have breathed in a large amount of these particles. Clearly the upper West Coast of the US has people being affected. That area got hit pretty heavy in April..."

Dr Shoji Sawada is a theoretical particle physicist and Professor Emeritus at Nagoya University in Japan.

He is concerned about the types of nuclear plants in his country, and the fact that most of them are of US design.

"Most of the reactors in Japan were designed by US companies who did not care for the effects of earthquakes," Dr Sawada told Al Jazeera. "I think this problem applies to all nuclear power stations across Japan."

Using nuclear power to produce electricity in Japan is a product of the nuclear policy of the US, something Dr Sawada feels is also a large component of the problem.

"Most of the Japanese scientists at that time, the mid-1950s, considered that the technology of nuclear energy was under development or not established enough, and that it was too early to be put to practical use," he explained. "The Japan Scientists Council recommended the Japanese government not use this technology yet, but the government accepted to use enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power stations, and was thus subjected to US government policy..."

Gundersen pointed out that the units are still leaking radiation.

"They are still emitting radioactive gases and an enormous amount of radioactive liquid," he said. "It will be at least a year before it stops boiling, and until it stops boiling, it's going to be cranking out radioactive steam and liquids."

Gundersen worries about more earthquake aftershocks, as well as how to cool two of the units.

"Unit four is the most dangerous, it could topple," he said. "After the earthquake in Sumatra there was an 8.6 [aftershock] about 90 days later, so we are not out of the woods yet. And you're at a point where, if that happens, there is no science for this, no one has ever imagined having hot nuclear fuel lying outside the fuel pool. They've not figured out how to cool units three and four."

Gundersen's assessment of solving this crisis is grim.

"Units one through three have nuclear waste on the floor, the melted core, that has plutonium in it, and that has to be removed from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."

Read the rest of Jamali's article here.

Reuters: Chernobyl clean-up expert condemns nuclear industry & Int. Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for inadequate response at Fukushima

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Russian nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev blamed a greedy nuclear industry and its influence over the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for intentionally ignoring lessons from Chernobyl:

"After Chernobyl all the force of the nuclear industry was directed to hide this event, for not creating damage to their reputation. The Chernobyl experience was not studied properly because who has money for studying? Only industry.

"But industry doesn't like it," he said in an interview in Vienna where the former director of the Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency now teaches and advises on nuclear safety. Austria's environment ministry has used him as an adviser.

Andreev said a fire which released radiation on Tuesday involving spent fuel rods stored close to reactors at Fukushima looked like an example of putting profit before safety:

"The Japanese were very greedy and they used every square inch of the space. But when you have a dense placing of spent fuel in the basin you have a high possibility of fire if the water is removed from the basin," Andreev said.

The IAEA should share blame for standards, he said, arguing it was too close to corporations building and running plants. And he dismissed an emergency incident team set up by the Vienna-based agency as "only a think-tank not a working force".

Some good news: Planned Kaminoseki nuclear plant (in Japan's beautiful Inland Sea) construction suspended

( Photo: Hiroshima-Kaminoseki Link: No Nuke Kaminoseki)
Two days ago construction on a planned nuclear power plant in seismic-intense, water-surrounded Kaminoseki was suspended.

For 30 years, Japanese fishermen, environmentalists, and citizens concerned about the safety of nuclear power have been protesting the proposed construction of a nuclear power plant at a small island in Japan's beautiful Seto Inland Sea National Park. The Seto Inland Sea is sometimes referred to as Japan’s Galapagos because of its rich biological diversity. Hiroshima-based Chugoku Electric Power Company, unresponsive to local choice (by villagers descended from area inhabitants for over a thousand years) and environmentalist concerns, even started landfill during an international biodiversity conference held in Nagoya last fall.

Chugoku operates two nuclear power plants and is now constructing a third in Matsue City, on the coast of the Japan Sea. On the other side of western Honshu (Japan's main island). The power company has planned to build two nuclear power plants on the Seto Inland Sea coast in Kaminoseki Town.

A Pan Orient News report on a hunger-strike earlier this year summarizes alarming unaddressed environmental risks and the history of the local unanimous protests.


(Photo: Martin Frid's eco-blog, Kurashi)
A recent hunger strike activist statement:

We decided to take this action because we do not want the radioactive waste that will arise and the radioactivity that will accumulate in the sea and the atmosphere as a consequence of constructing and operating this nuclear power plant to be left to our own and our children’s generations.

Radioactive waste continues to release radioactivity for thousands of years, but no means of disposing of it has been established. Furthermore, although nuclear power plants can only be operated for about 40 years and the buildings themselves become radioactive in the process, no safe method of decommissioning them after they are shut down has been found.

Nevertheless, they are going ahead with a plan to construct a new nuclear power plant at Kaminoseki Town in Yamaguchi Prefecture. To construct a new nuclear power plant when there is neither a method of disposing of the radioactive waste that will be produced in the process of operating the plant, nor a method of decommissioning the plant after it is shut down is to bequeath the problems to generations of young people to come.

Caroline Fraser writes on Kaminoseki at Environment 360:

The nuclear power industry, a powerful player in Japan’s politically dominant construction industry, has pressed ahead with its plans — endorsed in 2006 by the Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry’s “New National Energy Policy” — to mold the country into a “nuclear state.” In addition to 54 existing nuclear power plants that until last week supplied 30 percent of the country’s electricity, a dozen new nuclear plants are planned or under construction.

One in particular has exposed a deep public divide. The proposed Kaminoseki nuclear plant is to be built on landfill in a national park in the country’s well-known Inland Sea, hailed as Japan’s Galapagos. For three decades, local residents, fishermen, and environmental activists have opposed the plant, saying it should not be built in the picturesque sea, with its rich marine life and fishing culture dating back millennia. The Inland Sea has also been the site of intense seismic activity, including the epicenter of the 1995 Kobe earthquake that killed 6,400 people...

“We have to stop it,” Masae Yuasa, a professor of International Studies at Hiroshima City University and a leading opponent of the plant, told me when I visited Japan last fall. In words that have a chilling resonance now, she continued, “Once an accident happens, there is no border. I want to be more polite, but we have to stop it. I am a person from Hiroshima. I cannot be quiet about it.”

Read the entire must-read article here. In an even broader framework, Allison MacFarlane explores the risky mix of geologic uncertainties and hazardous industries at The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists: Spent Fuel Pools at Fukushima Nuclear Facility

The Union of Concerned Scientists' analyis of the spent fuel (radioactive nuclear waste) situation at Fukushima's Unit 4 reactor.

Nuclear plant in Fukushima has lost nuclear waste containment integrity; leaking radiation

Dave Lindorff of This Can't Be Happening explains why the 1970's-era General Electric (GE)-designed boiling water nuclear reactors in Fukushima experienced hydrogen explosions:

The drawings of the plants in question, called Mark I Reactors, provide no way for venting hydrogen gas from the containment buildings, despite the fact that one of the first things that happens in the event of a cooling failure is the massive production of hydrogen gas by the exposed fuel rods in the core. This is why three of the nuclear generator buildings at Fukushima Dai-ichi have exploded with tremendous force blasting off the roof and walls of the structures, and damaging control equipment needed to control the reactors.

Today The Guardian reported that the U.S.-based Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began issuing warnings in 1972 about the hydrogen explosion risks of the GE Mark 1 reactors.

Another GE Mark 1 design issue involves the storage of spent nuclear fuel (nuclear waste). These plants store waste in pools of water on the upper level of the containment building, above the reactors. This waste contains the highly radioactive decay products of the fission process: Cesium 137, Iodine 131 and Strontium 90. To prevent evaporation, the pool water must circulate. If the containment around the spent fuel is compromised, then radiation will be released. Photos from the Fukushima facility show the roofs of two containment buildings have been blown off, calling the integrity of the spent nuclear fuel pools into question.

Two days ago, Green Mountain Daily published Maggie Gundersen's analysis of the first explosion by nuclear plant engineers familiar with the plants' design. (This must-read article contains a video and important background links). Their evaluation in short: the blast opened the fuel pool on the top floor to the environment, so years of spent fuel is not being cooled and is in direct contact with the air.

Thus, the plant is releasing significant amounts of radiation that appears to be moving towards the Pacific Ocean. Like Three Mile Island (TMI), significant amounts of radiation has been detected around the plants: radioactive Cesium (lasts in the environment for 300 years and is absorbed by muscles in the human body, especially infant hearts). People near the plants are receiving as much radiation in an hour as they would normally receive in one year.

The Guardian also reported that Robert Alvarez, a senior policy analyst at the Institute of Policy Studies, has echoed the PACE assessment, saying: "...satellite pictures of the Fukushima plant showed evidence of damage to the spent fuel pool:

"There is clear evidence that the fuel cask cranes that haul spent fuels to and from the reactor to the pool both fell. They are gone," he said. "There appears to be copious amounts of steam pouring of the area where the pools is located."

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), also based in the U.S., has addressed the same issue. John McGlynn, editor at The Asia-Pacific Journal, posted a summary and excerpt of their report:

"A special feature of the Mark 1 design is that the used fuel, also called spent fuel, is stored within the reactor building in a swimming pool like concrete structure near the top of the reactor vessel. When the reactor is refueled, the spent fuel is taken from the reactor by a large crane, transferred to the pool, and kept underwater for a few years. This spent fuel must be kept underwater to prevent severe releases of radioactivity, among other reasons. A meltdown or even a fire could occur if there is a loss of coolant from the spent fuel pool. The water in the spent fuel pool and the roof of the reactor building are the main barriers to release of radioactivity from the spent fuel pool."

Aileen Mioko Smith of Green Action just posted (via NHK) this today, as well:

NHK has now reported that the spent fuel pool at Fukushima Daiichi (Unit 3) does not have a roof over it since yesterday’s explosion.

There is no electric source, and there is a possibility that it has lost cooling ability. There is steam around the roof top.

Joseph Calamia at IEEE Spectrum, a website that reports on tech issues, reports on expert discussion about the risks from radioactive nuclear waste emissions at the Fukushima facility:

In a larger discussion regarding the disaster among representatives from the watchdog group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, experts questioned whether spent fuel, stored on-site in the Japanese plants, might also pose a threat...

In Mark-I reactor designs, such as the Fukushima Daiichi plant, spent fuel is located in cooling pools in the reactor's "attic," explains David Lochbaum, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' nuclear safety program. For exploding units, which have blown off their roofs and walls, the problem is clear: "If there's any radiation released, it's got to get to the environment." He compares that scenario with radiation released from fuel in the core, protected by the containment building which "would reduce the amount of radioactivity that reaches the public..."

Describing hypotheticals, Lochbaum explains that if there was widespread release of spent fuel, the casualties for a worst case scenario might be similar to the worst case scenario for leakage from the core.

The difference, he explains, is that the core would release a lot of short-lived radioisotopes, causing more fatalities in the first year, while a spent fuel accident might mean that primary casualties would come from cancer "down the road."

Nuclear waste storage pools at 2 nuclear plants in Fukushima have lost containment integrity

Two days ago, the U.S.-based People's Alliance for Clean Energy (PACE), a clean energy advocacy group in Virginia, posted an analysis of the Fukushima nuclear facility emergency by nuclear plant expert engineers familiar with the plants' design.

In short, they say at least one nuclear plant has lost containment integrity and is leaking radiation. The General Electric-designed plants have a Mark 1 (earliest) containment, with the fuel pool on the top floor. After the hydrogen explosion at the first (#1 unit) plant, the fuel pool opened to the environment, so years of spent fuel is not being cooled and is in direct contact with the air. The plants are releasing significant amounts of radiation that appears to be moving towards the Pacific Ocean. Like Three Mile Island (TMI), significant amounts of radiation has been detected around the plant: radioactive Cesium (lasts in the environment for 300 years and is absorbed by muscles in the human body, especially infant hearts). People near the plant are receiving as much radiation in an hour as they would normally receive in one year.

Today, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), also based in the U.S., addresses the same issue. John McGlynn, hot news editor, posted a summary and excerpt of the IEER report atThe Asia-Pacific Journal:

"Both reactors [Units 1 and 3] are of the Mark 1 Boiling Water Design. They do not have the sturdy secondary containment buildings of concrete that is several feet thick typical of later reactor designs.

A special feature of the Mark 1 design is that the used fuel, also called spent fuel [radioactive waste], is stored within the reactor building in a swimming pool like concrete structure near the top of the reactor vessel. When the reactor is refueled, the spent fuel is taken from the reactor by a large crane, transferred to the pool, and kept underwater for a few years. This spent fuel must be kept underwater to prevent severe releases of radioactivity, among other reasons. A meltdown or even a fire could occur if there is a loss of coolant from the spent fuel pool. The water in the spent fuel pool and the roof of the reactor building are the main barriers to release of radioactivity from the spent fuel pool."

Aileen Mioko Smith of Green Action just reposted (via NHK) on the same issue:

NHK has now reported that the spent fuel pool at Fukushima Daiichi (Unit 3) does not have a roof over it since yesterday’s explosion.

There is no electric source, and there is a possibility that it has lost cooling ability. There is steam around the roof top. The connection between this and the other is unknown.

The Union of Concerned Scientists: fact-sheet on nuclear accidents.