watertanksvia NHK / January 10, 2014 /

Nuclear regulators will discuss measures to prevent the increase of radiation levels around the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The level of radiation at the plant’s border rose to more than 8 milisieverts in annualized figures in December, from less than 1 milisievert in March in the same year.

The regulators say that’s due to the increasing number of storage tanks for radioactive water at the plant. There are now about 1,000 tanks at the site.

They explained that the water basically emits beta-rays, which are too weak to penetrate the steel tanks. But they say, when beta-rays hit metals, stronger X-rays come out of the tanks, affecting the environment.


Did you like this? Share it:
By Corbett| 8 Comments | Featured, News


  1. ….. and they had no idea that this would happen?

    Damn these people.

    • This is bad but is sure to be allot worse very very soon

  2. And they keep building more nuclear power plants in the US. They can’t control the possible failure. They know the extent of the damage, so why do they keep building them? I would cut down on my electricity consumption if I had to vote. Wake up consumers!!! How much electricity do you really need??? Is it worth it?

  3. Now maybe I don’t know what i am talking about, or there is an error with the way i am calculating annualized exposure, but it seems to me that it would be hourly exposure times 24 times 365. If i am correct, then the readings of 25+ micro sieverts per hour which I have seen on local Fukushima monitoring sites, would translate into 219,000 micro sieverts, or 219 milli sieverts. Can someone please explain my error, or theirs, or ……

    • Yes, 25 µSv/hr is 219 mSv/yr. Yes, some of the monitoring stations near Fukushima are showing those levels of radiation (per new.atmc.jp). I believe the “annualized” figures refer to the average hourly rate over the last year, and not the annual dosage.

  4. 1,000 tanks … hmmmmm

    I believe that I am right in saying that when metals are exposed long-term to radiation that they weaken considerably. This combined with the ongoing earthquake normality really concerns me.

    Can we trust Tepco to responsibly instigate a programme of rolling replacement – is it even possible?

    I agre with an earlier poster about commiting to lower electricity bills to rid ourselves of this irresponsible threat.

    Moreover, what happens in the next war when one or both sides have nuclear reactors and the loser is backed intop a desperate corner. They will bomb the oppositions nuclear facilities – a truely frightening thought.

    Bt the way, I appreciate the level-headedness of this blog. Thanks

  5. I’m honestly all for nuclear power! But the difference between the US and Japan is that the US is a much safer haven for building nuclear reactors. I mean MIT has one in its BASEMENT! Like seriously?!! Who would build a nuclear plant near the ocean where tsunamis and earthquakes are constantly happening! These Japanese “geniuses” should have seen it coming!

  6. …what happens when Reactor 4 collapses?….kiss Tokyo, and Japan good-bye (and that’s just for starters)

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *