そして、３００ＫＭ逃げても安全と言い切れないから避難半径を広げないのだと思っていた。
モニターはしてくれていたのかな？
文部省の都道府県別放射線調査結果のミラーサイト
http://
http://
http://
を見ていたのでリアルタイムでのモニターはしていると思っていたのだけれど。
この計算には↑で計測できるデータは役に立たないのかな？計算にはこのデータは役に立たないけれども、人々の安全には問題ないことはわかってたのかな？
そこはわからんのだけれど・・・
もし計器故障→計算不能→人々の安全は不明
だったのだとしたらば、それはまずい。
そして、計器故障なら計器故障していることを国民に知らせ外国が計測計算した値をベースとして避難範囲の調整をおこなうべきではないのだろうか？
また南アフリカのレスキュー隊は計器を持ち込んでいるそう。海外から計器借りるとかそういうことはできないのだろうか？
これだと政府は「いやー実は30ＫＭ圏外の人々の安全については全然、判断できてなかったのですよ〜。で、ほっといた。」って言っていることになる。
とりあえず、停電などに影響されないように改善が即時、必要。というか原発事故などの際に使う可能性があるものが停電に影響される構造だったというのがもう理解不能。（どういう計測器なのかわからないけれども。）
アメリカも多くの原発を持つ。
（米118基 日52基 2004年データ）
日本と違う点は米国は国土が広い。
人々が避難する場所はいくらでもある。
チェルノブイリのデータを見た。
30ＫＭ圏内で放射性物質に汚染されなかった場所もあれば（といっても30KM圏内はほとんど汚染されている）、300ＫＭ以上はなれた場所で濃度の高い放射性物質に汚染された地域もある。
風や地形に大きく影響されるものらしい。
日本は？
ほぼ逃げ場がない、ということになるように思える。
日本の原発が老朽化は指摘されていても、確かにしっかりとした耐震構造、耐震システムが備わっていることは事実だと思う。過去、度重なる震度5-6の地震に耐えているという事実があるのだからそれは否定できないし、私は否定するつもりもない。でも、今後M9の地震はまた起こるかもしれない。
原発賛成・反対、どちらのニュースや情報も自分で確かめないと信憑性がわからないなと思うのだけれども
Hamaoka nuclear power plant
静岡県浜岡原子発電所
海外の地質学者はこの原子力発電所がもっとも危険であると指摘している。この記事は2004年に書かれたもので、その時点で既に冷却システムに故障が生じるだろうということを予測していた。津波でなくて地震そのものだけで冷却システムに故障が生じるだろうとの予測だ。（一番下に全文に転載する。本当に日本の科学者が「"It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode."」と発言したのだろうか？とちと疑問を感じる部分があるけれども・・。したのだったら、もっと品を持ってもらいたい。）
静岡では3/15に震度6。
ぎくり、としました。
今回、東京から人々が静岡や大阪などに避難していて、もし浜岡原子炉に異常が起きていたら？
過去のデータを見る限りＭ5-7の地震には日本の原発は耐えうる構造であるようだし、こんなにも多くの大きな地震が次から次へと本州で起こるということは過去にはなかった。
でも、多くの大きな地震が次から次へと本州で起きた。
そして、これからも起きるかもしれない。
と思うと・・日本に原子力発電所はないほうがいい、とそう私は思う。
原子力発電所停止への道を探しましょ。
http://
私が書いている内容についても鵜呑みにしないでください。私が素人であるからもありますが、専門家の言っていることにも専門家の間で意見が分かれているから。
たとえば外国人科学者の記事では胎児にも影響があるとあるが、日本のニュースでは胎児は大丈夫とあったり、と全く逆のことが書かれていてどれが本当なのかわからない。
■放射性物質、初の拡散試算…原子力安全委
(読売新聞 - 03月23日 22:52)
http://
東京電力福島第一原子力発電所の事故に関して、政府の原子力安全委員会（委員長＝班目(まだらめ)春樹・元東京大学教授）は２３日夜、放射性物質の拡散を予測した模擬計算「ＳＰＥＥＤＩ（スピーディ）」の結果を発表した。
本来、事故発生時に住民が迅速に避難するために利用するはずだったが、東日本巨大地震による停電や計器故障で、前提となる放射性物質の放出量が分からず、避難に役立つ計算ができなかった。
このため、安全委では２０〜２２日の原発周辺の大気中の放射性物質の観測結果をもとに放出量を逆算。これを前提に、改めて放射性物質がどう拡散するか計算した。２３日午後９時にようやく結果を公表したが、米エネルギー省が同日午前９時に独自の計算結果を公表した後だった。
計算は、事故後の１２日から２４日までずっと屋外にいたと想定。最も影響を受けやすい１歳児が、大気中に漂う放射性ヨウ素を体内に取り込んだ場合の被曝(ひばく)量を予測した。その結果、現在避難や屋内退避の指示が出ている同原発から３０キロの範囲外でも、一部の地域で被曝量が安定ヨウ素剤の予防投与の対象になる１００ミリ・シーベルトを超える危険性があることが分かった。
安全委は「１００ミリ・シーベルトを超えても健康に影響はない。しかも、屋内にいれば被曝量は屋外の１０分の１から４分の１になる」としている。
安全委は、放出量を特定しない計算も行っていたが、結果を公表せず、専門家の批判を受けていた。
ーーーーー
http://
unday, May 23, 2004
Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette
By LEUREN MORET
Special to The Japan Times
Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list.
 |
| An aerial view of the Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, "the most dangerous nuclear power plant in Japan" |
The Japanese archipelago is located on the so-called Pacific Rim of Fire, a large active volcanic and tectonic zone ringing North and South America, Asia and island arcs in Southeast Asia. The major earthquakes and active volcanoes occurring there are caused by the westward movement of the Pacific tectonic plate and other plates leading to subduction under Asia.
Japan sits on top of four tectonic plates, at the edge of the subduction zone, and is in one of the most tectonically active regions of the world. It was extreme pressures and temperatures, resulting from the violent plate movements beneath the seafloor, that created the beautiful islands and volcanoes of Japan.
Nonetheless, like many countries around the world -- where General Electric and Westinghouse designs are used in 85 percent of all commercial reactors -- Japan has turned to nuclear power as a major energy source. In fact the three top nuclear-energy countries are the United States, where the existence of 118 reactors was acknowledged by the Department of Energy in 2000, France with 72 and Japan, where 52 active reactors were cited in a December 2003 Cabinet White Paper.
The 52 reactors in Japan -- which generate a little over 30 percent of its electricity -- are located in an area the size of California, many within 150 km of each other and almost all built along the coast where seawater is available to cool them.
However, many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently. The periodicity of major earthquakes in Japan is less than 10 years. There is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan -- the third-ranked country in the world for nuclear reactors.
"I think the situation right now is very scary," says Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and professor at Kobe University. "It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode."
Last summer, I visited Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, at the request of citizens concerned about the danger of a major earthquake. I spoke about my findings at press conferences afterward.
 |
| A map of Japan annotated by the author, showing the tectonic plates, areas of high ("observed region") and very high ("specially observed") quake risk, and the sites of nuclear reactors |
Because Hamaoka sits directly over the subduction zone near the junction of two plates, and is overdue for a major earthquake, it is considered to be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in Japan.
Together with local citizens, I spent the day walking around the facility, collecting rocks, studying the soft sediments it sits on and tracing the nearly vertical faults through the area -- evidence of violent tectonic movements.
The next day I was surprised to see so many reporters attending the two press conferences held at Kakegawa City Hall and Shizuoka Prefecture Hall. When I asked the reporters why they had come so far from Tokyo to hear an American geoscientist, I was told it was because no foreigner had ever come to tell them how dangerous Japan's nuclear power plants are.
I told them that this is the power of gaiatsu (foreign pressure), and because citizens in the United States with similar concerns attract little media attention, we invite a Japanese to speak for us when we want media coverage -- someone like the famous seismologist Professor Ishibashi!
When the geologic evidence was presented confirming the extreme danger at Hamaoka, the attending media were obviously shocked. The aerial map, filed by Chubu Electric Company along with its government application to build and operate the plant, showed major faults going through Hamaoka, and revealed that the company recognized the danger of an earthquake. They had carefully placed each reactor between major fault lines.
"The structures of the nuclear plant are directly rooted in the rock bed and can tolerate a quake of magnitude 8.5 on the Richter scale," the utility claimed on its Web site.
From my research and the investigation I conducted of the rocks in the area, I found that that the sedimentary beds underlying the plant were badly faulted. Some tiny faults I located were less than 1 cm apart.
When I held up samples of the rocks the plant was sitting on, they crumbled like sugar in my fingers. "But the power company told us these were really solid rocks!" the reporters said. I asked, "Do you think these are really solid?' and they started laughing.
On July 7 last year, the same day of my visit to Hamaoka, Ishibashi warned of the danger of an earthquake-induced nuclear disaster, not only to Japan but globally, at an International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics conference held in Sapporo. He said: "The seismic designs of nuclear facilities are based on standards that are too old from the viewpoint of modern seismology and are insufficient. The authorities must admit the possibility that an earthquake-nuclear disaster could happen and weigh the risks objectively."
After the greatest nuclear power plant disaster in Japan's history at Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, in September 1999, large, expensive Emergency Response Centers were built near nuclear power plants to calm nearby residents.
After visiting the center a few kilometers from Hamaoka, I realized that Japan has no real nuclear-disaster plan in the event that an earthquake damaged a reactor's water-cooling system and triggered a reactor meltdown.
Additionally, but not even mentioned by ERC officials, there is an extreme danger of an earthquake causing a loss of water coolant in the pools where spent fuel rods are kept. As reported last year in the journal Science and Global Security, based on a 2001 study by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if the heat-removing function of those pools is seriously compromised -- by, for example, the water in them draining out -- and the fuel rods heat up enough to combust, the radiation inside them will then be released into the atmosphere. This may create a nuclear disaster even greater than Chernobyl.
If a nuclear disaster occurred, power-plant workers as well as emergency-response personnel in the Hamaoka ERC would immediately be exposed to lethal radiation. During my visit, ERC engineers showed us a tiny shower at the center, which they said would be used for "decontamination' of personnel. However, it would be useless for internally exposed emergency-response workers who inhaled radiation.
When I asked ERC officials how they planned to evacuate millions of people from Shizuoka Prefecture and beyond after a Kobe-magnitude earthquake (Kobe is on the same subduction zone as Hamaoka) destroyed communication lines, roads, railroads, drinking-water supplies and sewage lines, they had no answer.
Last year, James Lee Witt, former director of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, was hired by New York citizens to assess the U.S. government's emergency-response plan for a nuclear power plant disaster. Citizens were shocked to learn that there was no government plan adequate to respond to a disaster at the Indian Point nuclear reactor, just 80 km from New York City.
The Japanese government is no better prepared, because there is no adequate response possible to contain or deal with such a disaster. Prevention is really the only effective measure to consider.
In 1998, Kei Sugaoka, 51, a Japanese-American senior field engineer who worked for General Electric in the United States from 1980 until being dismissed in 1998 for whistle-blowing there, alerted Japanese nuclear regulators to a 1989 reactor inspection problem he claimed had been withheld by GE from their customer, Tokyo Electric Power Company. This led to nuclear-plant shutdowns and reforms of Japan's power industry.
Later it was revealed from GE documents that they had in fact informed TEPCO -- but that company did not notify government regulators of the hazards.
Yoichi Kikuchi, a Japanese nuclear engineer who also became a whistle-blower, has told me personally of many safety problems at Japan's nuclear power plants, such as cracks in pipes in the cooling system from vibrations in the reactor. He said the electric companies are "gambling in a dangerous game to increase profits and decrease government oversight."
Sugaoka agreed, saying, "The scariest thing, on top of all the other problems, is that all nuclear power plants are aging, causing a deterioration of piping and joints which are always exposed to strong radiation and heat."
Like most whistle-blowers, Sugaoka and Kikuchi are citizen heroes, but are now unemployed.
The Radiation and Public Health Project, a group of independent U.S. scientists, has collected 4,000 baby teeth from children living around nuclear power plants. These teeth were then tested to determine their level of Strontium-90, a radioactive fission product that escapes in nuclear power plant emissions.
Unborn children may be exposed to Strontium-90 through drinking water and the diet of the mother. Anyone living near nuclear power plants is internally exposed to chronically low levels of radiation contaminating food and drinking water. Increased rates of cancer, infant mortality and low birth weights leading to cognitive impairment have been linked to radiation exposure for decades.
However, a recent independent report on low-level radiation by the European Committee on Radiation Risk, released for the European Parliament in January 2003, established that the ongoing U.S. Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Studies conducted in Japan by the U.S. government since 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors underestimated the risk of radiation exposure as much as 1,000 times.
Additionally, on March 26 this year -- the eve of the 25th anniversary of the worst nuclear disaster in U.S. history, at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania -- the Radiation and Public Health Project released new data on the effects of that event. This showed rises in infant deaths up to 53 percent, and in thyroid cancer of more than 70 percent in downwind counties -- data which, like all that concerning both the short- and long-term health effects, has never been forthcoming from the U.S. government.
It is not a question of whether or not a nuclear disaster will occur in Japan; it is a question of when it will occur.
Like the former Soviet Union after Chernobyl, Japan will become a country suffering from radiation sickness destroying future generations, and widespread contamination of agricultural areas will ensure a public-health disaster. Its economy may never recover.
Considering the extreme danger of major earthquakes, the many serious safety and waste-disposal issues, it is timely and urgent -- with about half its reactors currently shut down -- for Japan to convert nuclear power plants to fossil fuels such as natural gas. This process is less expensive than building new power plants and, with political and other hurdles overcome, natural gas from the huge Siberian reserves could be piped in at relatively low cost. Several U.S. nuclear plants have been converted to natural gas after citizen pressure forced energy companies to make changeovers.
Commenting on this way out of the nuclear trap, Ernest Sternglass, a renowned U.S. scientist who helped to stop atmospheric testing in America, notes that, 'Most recently the Fort St. Vrain reactor in Colorado was converted to fossil fuel, actually natural gas, after repeated problems with the reactor. An earlier reactor was the Zimmer Power Plant in Cincinnati, which was originally designed as a nuclear plant but it was converted to natural gas before it began operating. This conversion can be done on any plant at a small fraction [20-30 percent] of the cost of building a new plant. Existing turbines, transmission facilities and land can be used."
After converting to natural gas, the Fort St. Vrain plant produced twice as much electricity much more efficiently and cheaply than from nuclear energy -- with no nuclear hazard at all, of course.
It is time to make the changeover from nuclear fuel to fossil fuels in order to save future generations and the economy of Japan.
Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Laboratory on the Yucca Mountain Project, and became a whistle-blower in 1991 by reporting science fraud on the project and at Livermore. She is an independent and international radiation specialist, and the Environmental Commissioner in the city of Berkeley, Calif. She has visited Japan four times to work with Japanese citizens, scientists and elected officials on radiation and peace issues. She can be contacted at leurenmoret@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment