New Highly Radioactive Leak Found at Fukushima Plant

Posted by on March 2, 2014 in Environment, Environmental Hazards with 0 Comments

Elizabeth Renter | NaturalSociety | March 2nd 2014

Fukushima radioactive water leakJust when we thought things couldn’t get worse for the Fukushima nuclear disaster, officials announced this week that a leak in a holding tank recently allowed 100 tons of contaminated water to pour out. Not surprisingly, however, Tokyo Electric Power Co. has said there is nothing to worry about and that the water was “unlikely to have reached the ocean.”

TEPCO has downplayed the disaster at Fukushima since the site was initially devastated in 2011. From covering up the extent of the damage to denying any possible health effects of leaking radiation, trust in the company has dwindled.


This latest leak is the first since last August, hardly an achievement considering August’s leaks were more than three times as large as this one.

“We are taking various measures, but we apologize for worrying the public with such a leak,” said Masayuki Ono, a spokesman for TEPCO, according to Reuters.

This latest leak happened when a valve mistakenly remained open on a large storage tank, sending the radioactive water into a separate holding area. A worker patrolling the area stumbled upon the leak when he noticed drips of water coming through a drain on the side of the tank.

Despite TEPCO’s assurance that the radioactive water didn’t make it to the ocean, the leak was only around 700 meters from the sea. And considering we all know the water cycle—where water goes into the ground and eventually makes its way to the ocean—it’s hard to believe the contaminated water wouldn’t eventually end up both in ground water supplies and the sea.


Just last week, a regulatory official said TEPCO “delayed release of record-high measurements of strontium-90 in groundwater despite repeated requests by the regulator.” For many reasons, the credibility of the power company has been shot.

Had the worker not been patrolling that area at that particular time, who knows how massive the leak could have been.

As is, initial measurements of the leak found  it had registered readings of 230 million becquerels per liter of beta-emitting radioactive isotopes (including strontium 90), nearly equal to the concentrations found in last August’s leak. The legal limit for releasing radioactive strontium 90 into the ocean is only 30 becquerels per liter.

Additional Sources:

Nuclear-News

More from NaturalSociety

Tags: , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

Leave a Reply

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

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the stories on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to friend