In some circles official denials of a theory are taken as proof the theory is true. On Tuesday, the 3rd anniversary of the Fukushima Daichi earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant disaster, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane wrote on the NRC’s blog that because of “the Pacific’s vast volume,” nuclear contamination from the crippled Fukushima power plants have dispersed, and Pacific Ocean radiation levels are “projected to be hundreds or a thousand or more times below already strict U.S. and international limits that protect public health and the environment.”
This sort of talk is to be expected from a person whose job it is to oversee the nuclear power station development. So, too, is his discussion of how the NRC set up a commission to study the Fukushima power plant disaster, and learn lessons. It doesn’t necessarily indicate an NRC cover up of problems with nuclear power, but that the NRC would be staffed by true believers in nuclear power safety.
Lessons the NRC Chairman claim are being implemented at nuclear power plants around the U.S. However, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report about the Fukushima crisis, and efforts to mitigate the demonstrated risks from the accident. The GAO report recommended more urgency on the part of the NRC, and International agencies, in tackling the issues with nuclear power plant safety, especially in the area of ensuring monitoring systems remain functional following accidents.
As we reported earlier, the Woods Hole Institute believes there isn’t enough government monitoring of radiation in the Pacific Ocean. WHOI scientists have been working to debunk the radiation fearmongering on the Internet, and have set up an independent crowd-funded project to measure radiation levels in the Ocean along the U.S. West Coast. As of late January, the project hadn’t detected any radiation from Fukushima along the West Coast, but that’s because the so-called “plume” hasn’t arrived, yet. The plume’s arrival is expected in March or April, 2014. The WHOI website shows data from a small fraction of the planned monitoring stations, and that Cesium-134 is still undetectable, and Cesium-137 concentrations are barely detectable.
If the NRC Chairman is to be believed at face value, the US government is monitoring the ocean for radioactive contamination. If true, then why did the Woods Hole Institute feel it necessary to set up an independent radiation monitoring service?
An excellent way the NRC could qualm our fears about radiation in the Pacific ocean, would be to monitor the ocean for radiation, and publish the data. The EPA’s RadNet monitoring network only monitors the atmosphere, and not the ocean.
- No, Tesla is not phasing out the J1772 adapter - April 17, 2019
- Near destruction of the Notre Dame contains lesson in thinking ahead - April 16, 2019
- Nepotism bites VP Joe Biden as he starts 2020 Presidential run - April 13, 2019
- Tesla almost kills $35k Model 3, launches lease program, still shows misleading pricing - April 13, 2019
- Tesla CEO Elon Musk giving flawed charging advice on Twitter - April 11, 2019
- Did Toyota spur the electrification craze? What does history say about electric vehicles? - April 9, 2019
- Elon Musk claims Tesla Autopilot drivers less mentally fatigued after long drives - March 26, 2019
- Why doesn’t Tesla install CHAdeMO or ComboChargingSystem charging stations? - March 22, 2019
- Tesla plans to keep more stores open, re-increase prices, backtracking on previous plan - March 11, 2019
- Imperial Beach CA backs off from “managed retreat” from the ocean that was their plan for sea level rise response - March 7, 2019