New Fukushima pictures show wreckage of plant

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -7

    ka_chan

    I suppose they can make area into a tourist attraction similar to Chenobyl. "Do step on those moss over there it is highly radioactive, just stay on the path and you will be safe".

  • 0

    Elvensilvan

    Scientists warn it could take 40 years to make some parts of the area safe again; others may never be habitable.

    But that depends on the local governments ... as we have seen in the past months, governors and mayors allow residents to go back to their towns, even with known hotspots all around the place.

    No one is officially recorded as having died as a direct result of the nuclear disaster.

    How would there be any? The people cleaning up the areas are contractual workers, who are removed from the workers' list once their radiation dosage have reached the safety limits. Also, we all know that the government will do anything to deny anything bad will ever come from radiation exposure, claiming old age, past sickness, poor diet, lack of exercise, ad nauseaum.

  • -1

    Rick Kisa

    Almost two years since the disaster, the reactor units are now under control, but the clean up is far from complete.

    Lest we forget, the plant is still spewing dangerous radiation daily since 2 years ago....Surprise that nobody has been imprisoned for this!

  • 0

    Disillusioned

    Surprise that nobody has been imprisoned for this!

    And, they never will be as long as they keep the apologies coming

  • -2

    Knox Harrington

    New?

    New picture perhaps but that is about it. What's new about any of this clownishly handeled disaster? It happens here over and over. If it isn't Minamata it's Fukushima and after that something else.

    At this point, Chernobyl is starting to look like a well handled catastrophe.

    The Fukushima disaster has been dealt with very badly. Questionable hiring rules of "cleanup" companies and staff that in turn have proved to perform a haphazard "cleanup" job. Re-labeled agriculture products, double-speak from ignorant mayors, incompentent risk-aversion predictions...

    I can go on forever.

    The earthquake was a force majure and could not have been stopped. How things have been handle after, though, could have. But haven't. 3/11 made me really open up my eyes and see what kind of society Japan really is - a one that if the lie is big enough, the populace say "yokatta ne" and happily forget reality in favor of living in slumber mode.

  • 7

    zichi

    I have been working my through these but you have to download them in zip packages. I might make a video from them and post it to YouTube.

  • -6

    Yubaru

    It was into an air heavy with the stench of industrial oils and rotting sea life left behind that workers rushed as they battled to contain the world’s worst nuclear disaster for a generation

    I wonder if the last line is correct and it should read the world's worst nuclear disaster period.

    No one is officially recorded as having died as a direct result of the nuclear disaster.

    That's only because Japan has it's own ways of keeping records. The former president of TEPCO I believe it was died sometime last year due to cancer, and he spent countless numbers of hours in the plant trying to do what was right. Sure there is no direct proof that his cancer was caused by exposure at Fukushima but there is no proof either that it wasn't.

    The total number of indirect deaths that CAN be directly attributed to the mess at Fukushima will never truly be known and could possibly outnumber the number who died from the tsunami.

  • -2

    gogogo

    Would really like to know the details on the second photo, seems like some steam coming from those things on the right and the floor completely flooded.

  • 8

    zichi

    @Yubaru

    That's only because Japan has it's own ways of keeping records. The former president of TEPCO I believe it was died sometime last year due to cancer, and he spent countless numbers of hours in the plant trying to do what was right. Sure there is no direct proof that his cancer was caused by exposure at Fukushima but there is no proof either that it wasn't.

    I think you are mistaken here. I think you mean the plant manager Yoshida and not the president of TEPCO. Also he didn't die although he's seriously with cancer, stomach cancer which is unrelated to his work at the atomic plant.

  • 0

    buchailldana

    I agree with so many people here.how is it that such a big disaster is so under reported. No real in depth stuff just that it is hunky-dory. I was in europe when chernobyl happened and it was much more informed .and that was with the secretive soviet union. Shame on them. Shame on them.

  • -1

    Alex Einz

    Under what control? Still emitting large amounts of radiation, with direct evidence of ongoing nuclear fission ( that is why they inject nitrogen ) and nobody being able to come near ... not being reported is not equal to under control....

    The only thing they starting to get under control is the n4 spent fuel pool that was on the verge of collapsing....

  • 7

    zichi

    It will take months to look at the photo's, there about 99 zip files to download. http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2013/201302-e/130201-01e.html

    For people looking for info on the disaster only need to follow,

    Read the articles on, http://ajw.asahi.com/category/0311disaster/

    Read the stuff on TEPCO's website.

    There's the very pro nuclear energy blog, which really annoys me <http;//hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html> which is full of info.

  • -7

    Alex Roncelli

    Do not let this stop Japan's nuclear program. Move ahead at full speed! What ever it takes, launch the radioactive waste into the sun!

  • -2

    Yubaru

    I think you are mistaken here. I think you mean the plant manager Yoshida and not the president of TEPCO. Also he didn't die although he's seriously with cancer, stomach cancer which is unrelated to his work at the atomic plant.

    Thank you, I didnt feel like going through all the "history" on this site to find that name.

    However I will say that while the reports were that his cancer was not due to Fukushima there is no way of knowing that after all the time he spent there that it didn't make things worse. There is no way to know really.

  • 0

    Cricky

    It takes 2 years for this to be released, (and in a format over 2 years old)? Makes you wonder about what else has yet to be "released" maybe the official readings were regrettable, Oh that's right they were!

  • 0

    tegomas

    No one is officially recorded as having died as a direct result of the nuclear disaster.

    Radiation is a slow killer. It usually takes several years before people succumb to diseases directly affected by radiation.

  • 4

    zichi

    TEPCO have been releasing detailed photo's and video's since the early days of the disaster and are available on their website.

    I've looked at more than 100 of these photo's taken by TEPCO workers mostly with mobile phones. Some are of poor quality. None have revealed anything new.

  • -5

    Star-viking

    Alex EinzFeb. 05, 2013 - 04:25PM JST

    Under what control? Still emitting large amounts of radiation, with direct evidence of ongoing nuclear fission ( that is why they inject nitrogen ) and nobody being able to come near ... not being reported is not equal to under control....

    Really? TEPCO says that the nitrogen injection is to deal with Hydrogen that was generated during the early days of the disaster.

  • -4

    Star-viking

    tegomasFeb. 05, 2013 - 06:01PM JST

    Radiation is a slow killer. It usually takes several years before people succumb to diseases directly affected by radiation.

    If they succumb at all...

  • -4

    Star-viking

    YubaruFeb. 05, 2013 - 04:51PM JST

    However I will say that while the reports were that his cancer was not due to Fukushima there is no way of knowing that after all the time he spent there that it didn't make things worse. There is no way to know really.

    We can say that is unlikely. No mention of a radiation effect on stomach cancer here http://www.webmd.com/cancer/stomach-gastric-cancer

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    The total number of indirect deaths that CAN be directly attributed to the mess at Fukushima will never truly be known and could possibly outnumber the number who died from the tsunami.

    Completely and utterly incorrect. 20,000 died in the tsunami.

    Do research. Look at the international publications and try to educate yourself. But please don't make such wild and ridiculous claims.

  • 4

    zichi

    @gogogo

    Would really like to know the details on the second photo, seems like some steam coming from those things on the right and the floor completely flooded.

    Looks like the dry cask depot.

  • 4

    zichi

    @gogogo

    the dry cask depot on the docks was badly damaged by the earthquake and tsunami but none of the dry casks containing spent fuel were damaged.

  • -2

    Yubaru

    We can say that is unlikely. No mention of a radiation effect on stomach cancer here http://www.webmd.com/cancer/stomach-gastric-cancer

    WE? Wow, another poster who thinks they think for the group, must be Japanese. and your link is to the American Cancer Society too, what do they have to do with Fukushima?

    Anyway, people here don't get it, and that's cool. But you will never be able to convince me that this guy's cancer was not made worse by being exposed as long as he was to the radiation at Fukushima in the days and months after the accident.

    There is NO WAY to tell right now how this will affect the thousands of workers there today, there is NO WAY to tell right now, now this will affect the families, the children, the grandchildren, and beyond, of the people exposed to radiation after the accident.

    The article stated No one is officially recorded as having died as a direct result of the nuclear disaster. and while I made a comment in my previous paragraph about the future there is still the effect of people who have committed suicide after being moved out, THEY died as a DIRECT RESULT of the nuclear disaster.

    That line can be read and interpreted in many different ways, the intent was to say radiation I am sure, but even that there is nothing "official", which says to me that there may be cases where they weren't sure, so they were left unreported and stay "un-official".

  • -4

    nigelboy

    Do research. Look at the international publications and try to educate yourself. But please don't make such wild and ridiculous claims.

    Got to agree with Heda. The anti-nuclear crowd needs to prove that people died /will die as a result of radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi accident as opposed to asking others to prove that people (past, present, and future) didn't/won't die from it.

  • 0

    Fadamor

    Anyway, people here don't get it, and that's cool. But you will never be able to convince me that this guy's cancer was not made worse by being exposed as long as he was to the radiation at Fukushima in the days and months after the accident.

    Noted. No amount of facts or reason will ever overcome hysteria. Believe what you like, just don't expect the rest of us to follow you over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings over something that can never be proved.

  • 4

    zichi

    @hawaiicalls

    The #4 reactor has a spent fuel rod pool about 100' elevated above the ground with over 1500 fuel rods in it. It has structural defects and could either rupture or collapse especially if there is a sizable earthquake.

    TEPCO reinforced the base of the No4 spent fuel pool with concrete and steel and it is unlikely to collapse even with a powerful quake. TEPCO have removed all the debris from the top floors of the No4 reactor building and covered the spent pool with thick iron plates. TEPCO is erecting a new structure alongside the No4 reactor to carry a new crane for the removal of the spent fuel which should begin by the end of this year, and will be complete by the end of 2014.

    There are now 3 cooling systems for the No4 spent pool including lost of power.

    But there are many problems TEPCO will have to overcome including locating and removing the melted fuel, if that's possible?

  • -3

    Yubaru

    Noted. No amount of facts or reason will ever overcome hysteria. Believe what you like, just don't expect the rest of us to follow you over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings over something that can never be proved

    You got that wrong. I expect nothing, however it appears to me that the people who are defending this article for it's accuracy are the one's taking the information hook, line, and sinker.

    The only information being disseminated out of Fukushima is coming either from TEPCO or the government, and I choose not to believe either. However it sounds to me that "you" leemings are willing to agree with the information that they put out.

    If you want to trust either of those entities that is purely up to you of course, but I choose not to.

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    Is there any reason why you are completely and utterly unwilling to do any research on the matter? That you still maintain the stance that you've held from Day 1? There are many, many experts who are neither Japanese nor connected to TEPCO or the Japanese government who state the complete opposite to what you say. UNSCEAR have actually rethought their whole stance on the dangers of low lever nuclear radiation. The WSJ, Forbes, credible international publications have led with the news of Fukushima.

    These are facts, led by experts. Not by people sat behind a key board who are simply too lazy or unwilling to do on research on the fact because they can't accept being wrong.

    "Background doses going from 250 mrem (2.5 mSv) to 350 mrem (3.5 mSv) will not raise cancer rates or have any discernable effects on public health."

    UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima. No effects.

    Do some research.

  • 2

    zichi

    @Yubaru

    If you want to trust either of those entities that is purely up to you of course, but I choose not to.

    So who do you trust for info about the nuclear disaster?

  • 1

    nedinjapan

    Heda_Madness, This is research: "More than 60 years of studies on about 86,000 atomic bomb survivors with assigned radiation doses at an average exposure dose of 0.25 Sievert have approved the so-called linear non-threshold theory and the linearity of the dose response relationship has been confirmed down to the lowest radiation doses. " You also say

    UNSCEAR also found no observable health effects from last year’s nuclear accident in Fukushima. No effects. So let me tell you this: Increased incidence of cancer will only start to appear 10 years after exposure and reach its peak 40-50 years. This is the result of more than 65 years of research.

  • -1

    nedinjapan

    Zichi, >

    I was hired to do research and write research papers to warn the Japanese medical community about the dangers of low dose radiation. I published 3 papers. My boss and other researchers have turned into hypocrites that now claim low dose radiation is not only dangerous, may also be good! What do you expect from a researcher when he has received 20 oku yen as Global COE grants?

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    Ned, I have no idea what your credentials are, but I doubt they are better than the scientists of the UNSCEAR. What I posted above is THEIR findings.

    A very big report came out last month with very little fanfare. It concluded that radiation doses less than about 10 rem (0.1 Sv) are no big deal. The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv), which is the region encompassing background levels around the world, and is the region of most importance to nuclear energy, most medical procedures and most areas affected by accidents like Fukushima.

    The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (UNSCEAR 2012) submitted the report that, among other things, states that uncertainties at low doses are such that UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.” (UNDOC/V1255385)

    And as far as Nagasaki and Hiroshima:

    Of the roughly 100,000 survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts, we can estimate that about 20,000 have died or will die from cancer. But in only about 800 of these cases was the cancer caused by the bombs. We know that by looking at similar cities.

    1. From 100,000. Who received radiation at far greater levels than those in Fukushima.
  • 2

    zichi

    @nedinjapan

    thank you for your personal info but in none of my comments on this post did I even mention radiation since the post is about photo's released by TEPCO, and taken by their employee's?

    I have mixed opinions about low level internal radiation depending on whether we are discussing very old people, like me, who will die before any radiation, or very young small children, and children in the womb. In general, those exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster will need to be monitored over the coming years.

  • 0

    nedinjapan

    Heda, the decision to omit "natural background radiation' from cancer risk estimation is a simple mathematical one. If everyone is exposed to 0.1 mSv, what is the point of calculating it? However, they have even shown that extra doses caused by medical imaging such as CT, increases the cancer incidence at levels that can be measured. The LNT is sadly correct. Because of this, I was hired to convince the Japanese community not to order CT scans unless the risk-benefit ratio justifies it. The same people are now saying that continuous exposure to increased levels of radiation through contamination with 137 Cesium is safe?! How can you believe this? The studies by Japanese researchers showed that cancer incidence rates increased 10 years after exposure and continued to rise. The peak came 40-50 years. Isn't it a deception to say so far no health effects have been observed?

  • 3

    zichi

    The new NRA seems to be working better than the previous atomic safety agencies and so far as refused to be bullied by the gov't, TEPCO or any of the power companies. If it can maintain its course the outlook is more positive on the future safety of the nuclear power plants.

    The country will experience a summer without a single atomic plant operating and that is likely to last for more than three years while the new safety standards are made law and the power companies decide whether to update their reactors or close them down.

  • -1

    nedinjapan

    Zichi, sorry I was referring to this question you asked: So who do you trust for info about the nuclear disaster? The quote somehow didn't function properly. My answer was that money flows in very innocent forms such as Research Grants can cause people you would normally trust, to lose their ethics. 20 oku yen and all the prestige that comes with it, is a strong silencer.

  • 0

    nedinjapan

    Heda, please check this one as an example: Ron E. Ionizing radiation and cancer risk: evidence from epidemiology. Radiat Res. 1998;150:S30-S41.

  • 3

    zichi

    @nedinjapan

    thank you but the nuclear disaster and what is happening at the Fukushima atomic plant is about more than radiation. We need to keep our finger on the pulse, and try to verify the info released by both the gov't and TEPCO. There are people doing just that.

    We already know, especially from the report made by the Diet Commission which investigated the cause of the nuclear disaster just how the nuclear village was allowed to function, including researchers receiving grants or payments from the nuclear industry or retiring officials from the atomic safety agencies getting nice jobs in the nuclear industry.

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    nedinjapan I'm posting the report that UNSCEAR gave to the UN General Council in January 2013. If you disagree with their findings then perhaps you should contact them. You've clearly got a stronger background in this subject than me, but given that it's UNSCEAR's findings from 2013 I'm somewhat surprised that you seem so keen to dismiss them out of hand.

  • 1

    nedinjapan

    Heda, Ron is like the god of Radiation research. Read this part:http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3579806 For all solid cancers combined, cancers of the thyroid, breast and lung, and leukemia, risk estimates are fairly precise, and associations have been found at relatively low doses (<0.2 Gy). Maybe I cannot explain everything but in a recent international conference, I was led to a corner where a friend working for the UN explained that in a recent meeting it was recommended that Japan should stay nuclear to keep the balance in East Asia and therefore the Japanese people's fears of nuclear energy had better be scaled down. My own boss gives a different reason; he says people may suffer mentally more than they suffer from radiation, and therefore he cannot tell everything. I am just saying that ionizing radiation has never been safe, and it has always been just about acceptable levels of unavoidable risk.

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    Isn't it a deception to say so far no health effects have been observed?

    Not at all. 800 people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki received cancer as a direct result of the bombs. That's from 100,000 people who received substantially more radiation than the people in Fukushima. In a time that didn't have the same screening or medical capabilities.

    Previous studies had put the maximum number of deaths from Fukushima at up to 200. And that was before UNSCEAR's findings.

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    1998, as opposed to the research published in 2013. Do you see why I'm struggling to understand your argument.

  • 1

    nedinjapan

    Heda, first I said it was a deception because increased cancer incidence is only expected after 10 years! It didn't happen earlier for atomic victims either! Only leukemia came 2-3 years after,but all solid cancer showed an increase after 10 years. his is the nature of low dose radiation risk. It comes late but it always comes! Also the same researcher, Ron, and others confirmed and added to these results in 2005 at WHO, where I was too. The LNT is based on more than 65 years of research with accurately measured exposure doses because 80,000 of the victims were properly mapped and doses estimated. No other study has such high quality of dose estimation.

  • 1

    nedinjapan

    Heda, get this quote: "As for the magnitude of radiation doses, the average exposure dose of A-bomb survivors is about 0.25 Sv, compared with an average dose of about 0.004 Sv/yr for nuclear workers, and less than 0.001 Sv for environmental exposure. So this is not such a high dose study that some may think it is, and you can get a lot of information on low dose radiation ... . In the Solid Cancer Incidence Dose Response, we have seen no evidence of non-linearity in the dose response (Table 3). Statistically significant trends are seen on the 0 – 0.15 Gy range, and the low dose range trend is consistent with that for the full range." I have all the files and am going to release them to show who the liars are ...

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    And UNSCEAR have said you can't apply LNT to low dose radiation, not in 1998 or in 2005 but in 2013.

  • 1

    nedinjapan

    Heda, I read your quote of UNSCEAR, such as "The linear no-threshold dose hypothesis (LNT) does not apply to doses less than 10 rem (0.1 Sv)". This is totally correct. The issue is a lot more complex, however. Remember the atomic bombings were a "one-time event". The radiation came in a shock wave, and that was it. We are talking about people who live in areas where a continuous exposure to radiation and as far a constant supply of more radiation exists. The question is about 'years of living' under higher levels of exposure. The extra doses will be added up, and only god knows how much 137 Cesium has been added to soil, underground water, and will keep draining into the environment from the broken down reactors. Don't you see the significance of these extra variables?

  • 1

    nedinjapan

    Heda, The average individual dose of background radiation exposure has been estimated in the UK at 2.70 mSv/year and at 3.75 mSv in Japan. This is the range that the UNSCEAR applies. We are talking about 'Extra' levels of exposure, and radiation researchers know that any extra amount 'counts'. Do you see how they play with words so that they have not said anything wrong but at the same time hidden the real message? God, how I wish I could become a smart writer like that ;-)

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    Yes I do understand the differences.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/01/11/like-weve-been-saying-radiation-is-not-a-big-deal/

    Perhaps you want to write to Forbes and highlight their error

  • 1

    nedinjapan

    Heda, thanks. I read the Forbes article. It is not written by a scientist, I presume, and is taking the 'background radiation' issue as a proxy for increased levels in Chernobyl and Fukushima (UNSCEAR “does not recommend multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or below natural background levels.” ) These are not the only places with increased background radiation. The former Soviets have left vast areas in Kazakhstan, and uranium trails in Uzbekistan contaminated without releasing any studies on the health impact to people. I have visited some of these areas. No official data but loads of blood disorders, cancer deaths and low levels of life expectancy are widely reported by people. This should have not happened in a developed and high income country such as Japan. TEPCO was saving billions in their bank accounts and not spending to upgrade their old designs and outdated structures, to stay richer and more profitable. Now the people of Fukushima and nearby areas should pay in generations, for electricity that was meant for Tokyo.

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    He has been a scientist?

    Hes not the only one, there are many others of similar stature. With many years exoertise in the field. None of whom have links with Tepco or the Japanese government.

    Theres been nothing negative in the internatuonal community about Fukushima. In fact its all been positive.

    But I'm not an expert. I've never claimed to be.

    James Cona is though.

    • Moderator

      All readers back on topic please. From here on, posts that do not focus on the story will be removed.

  • -1

    nedinjapan

    To travel to Fukushima has no risk, living there is different. I would travel to Fukushima too but would never agree to live there. I already rejected the offer to work in their university's international relations ...

  • -1

    Yubaru

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/05/business/lady-judge-fukushima-japan-nuclear/index.html

    People have asked what information, and I might add for myself, WHO I would trust with information about Fukushima!

    SHE I would trust! Good luck to her!

    The woman powering Japan's nuclear hopes post-Fukushima

  • 3

    zichi

    @Yubaru

    very strange statement that you trust this Brit-American female lawyer hired by TEPCO to try and get their nuclear energy back into business regardless that she lacks any experience of working in any kind of nuclear industry?

  • 0

    Star-viking

    nedinjapanFeb. 06, 2013 - 11:55AM JST

    However, they have even shown that extra doses caused by medical imaging such as CT, increases the cancer incidence at levels that can be measured. The LNT is sadly correct. Because of this, I was hired to convince the Japanese community not to order CT scans unless the risk-benefit ratio justifies it.

    So your work is a follow-on to Dr Ghotbi's work on unnecessary use of CT Scans in Japan? He states that CT is not considered a low-dose procedure. His paper is very interesting:

    "Evidence-based Guidelines Needed on the Use of CT Scanning in Japan", N.Ghotbi et al, Japan Medical Association Journal Vol.48 No.9, 451-459, 2005.

    By the way, who were you hired by? What is your role?

  • 0

    nandakandamanda

    More trouble bubbling up. NHK reports it here as TEPCO giving false information to block an investigation: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20130207_19.html

    Sure false info is wrong, but NHK is guilty by omission, ie not giving the reasons for the requested inspections. Shame on NHK!

    The back-up gravity-fed cooling system on the 4th floor of reactor #1 was probably destroyed by the earthquake, NOT the tsunami, and TEPCO desperately wanted to hide the smoking gun.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Reservations and Operations Executive

    Reservations and Operations Executive
    Destination Asia Japan、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.0M ~ ¥3.0M / Year
  • Marketing & Communications

    Marketing & Communications
    East West Consulting (イーストウエストコンサルティング株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Country Manager

    Country Manager
    Gallo Japan KK、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Business Development Leader

    Business Development Leader
    GPlus Media K.K. / 株式会社ジープラス・メディア、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable Commission Based Depending on Experience
  • IT Operations Manager

    IT Operations Manager
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ

More in National

View all

View all