"Fukushima Daiichi: It May Be Too Late Unless the Military Steps In"

Japanese diplomat Akio Matsumura has posted a new blog proposing that military intervention be deployed to prevent the worst from happening at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 (see photo, left). He proposes that the Japan Self-Defense Forces be deployed to Unit 4 to offload high-level radioactive waste, before another, almost inevitable earthquake topples the building and its irradiated nuclear fuel catches fire. Unit 4's pool holds 8 times the radioactive Cesium-137 released by Chernobyl. But a fire in Unit 4's pool would very likely lead to the evacuation of the entire site, risking 85 times Chernobyl's hazardous Cesium-137 escaping if all 7 of Fukushima Daiichi's pools are allowed to boil dry and catch fire (not to mention what more would happen if its three melted down reactor cores are no longer cooled either).

Of course, the U.S. faces potentially catastrophic risks at its 31 GE BWR Mark I and II high-level radioactive waste storage pools, as well.

In fact, U.S. pools hold significantly more waste than their Japanese counterparts. Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 held 219 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel, according to the Japanese Parliament's committee investigating the catastrophe. But as but a couple examples, the Pilgrim, MA and Fermi 2, MI Mark I pools hold more than 600 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel, each! In fact, Pilgrim and Fermi 2's pools hold every single irradiated nuclear fuel assembly ever generated by those reactors!

"Nuclear industry suffers major defeat in Iowa"

"Burning Money" image by Gene Case, Avenging AngelsFriends of the Earth (FOE) reports that the Iowa State Legislature has ended its session without approving "Construction Work in Progress" (CWIP), a gimmick by which nuclear utilities can charge ratepayers on their electricity bill for the construction of atomic reactors, even if they never recieve one watt of electricity from their involuntary "investment." The victory is thanks to the efforts of an environmental coalition, including FOE as well as grassroots groups such as Green State Solutions. The grassroots environmental victory comes despite intense lobbying efforts by Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Energy, which hoped to foist the construction costs for its proposed "dirty, dangerous, and expensive" atomic reactor onto the ratepayers of Iowa, despite 3/4ths of Iowans opposing the plan.

If successful, the nuclear industry's bid to add "Small Modular Reactors" to the Great Plains of Iowa would add to the radiological risks. GE BWR Mark Is -- identical to Fukushima Daiichi's Units 1-4 -- already operate at Duane Arnold in IA, as well as Cooper, NE just to the west and Quad Cities, IL just to the east.

Were you outraged??

We’re outraged. And we expect you were, too. On April 23, 2012, the Washington Post editorial board writers callously dismissed the Fukushima nuclear disaster as “non-catastrophic.”

The Post advocated the continued use of nuclear energy and dismissed Germany's green revolution as an "anti-nuclear frenzy," while omitting inconvenient deal-breakers such as cost, waste, safety, health risks and human rights. The paper taunted Germany and Japan - and the anti-nuclear movement - for looking to renewables but misrepresented Germany’s successes. And they utterly ignored those who have already paid the price for the nuclear fuel chain, like indigenous uranium miners, and its newest victims, the children of Japan whose future has been stolen. You can review the original editorial here. 

Tell the Washington Post what you think!  We're fighing back. Please forward our alert and reference our longer rebuttal document. Write to the editorial board at The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-0001. Or contact the editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt at fredhiatt@washpost.com or 202-334-7281. You can also contact the Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, at ombudsman@washpost.com.

But it's not only the Washington Post editorial board that seems unable, or even unwilling, to learn the lessons from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe (yes, it is a catastrophe, one that will continue to unfold forevermore, given the hazardous persistence of Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu-239, etc.). The U.S. nuclear power industry, and its friends at the NRC, Capitol Hill, and White House also seem unable, or unwilling, to learn. Which invites catastrophe here, as we have 31 GE BWR Mark Is and IIs, of identical or very similar design to Fukushima Daiichi Units 1-4.

General Electric Stockholders Seek Freeze on 23 U.S. Fukushima-Design Reactors

The General Electric Stockholders' Alliance, in coalition with Beyond Nuclear and Don't Waste Michigan, sent out a media release after its presentation of an anti-nuclear power shareholder resolution at GE's Annual Meeting in Detroit, Michigan on the eve of the 26th annual commemoration of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe.

Could GE have prevented the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe, involving four GE Mark I reactors?

NRC file photo of Fermi 2, on the Lake Erie shoreline 35 miles south of Detroit, MichiganThe General Electric Stockholders' Alliance (GESA), Beyond Nuclear, and Don't Waste Michigan has published a media release two days before General Electric's annual shareholders meeting. GESA has tapped Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear, and Michael Keegan of Don't Waste Michigan, to represent its anti-nuclear resolution at the meeting. The meeting is taking place in downtown Detroit, 35 miles north of the Fermi 2 atomic reactor (see photo, left), identical in design to the four reactors involved in the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe.

Kevin is quoted: “The high-level radioactive waste storage pool at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 is at precarious risk of failure, which would lead to a fire and catastrophic radioactivity release even worse than what has already occurred, due to the lack of radiological containment over the pool. But the Fermi 2 pool contains far more high-level radioactive waste than Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4 put together, and is itself an accident waiting to happen.  With the loss of ability to circulate water, the Fermi 2 irradiated nuclear fuel pool could begin to boil off in 4.2 hours.” 

Michael is quoted: “The potential of a cataclysmic accident at an untested General Electric-Hitachi ESBWR design is always there.   The next greatest immediate impacts are costs associated with the loss of opportunity to move toward renewable and energy efficiency. With the cost of Fermi 3 now projected at $15 billion, and the potential of skyrocketing cost overruns, we can either go nuclear, or pursue the promise of efficiency and renewables, but we can’t do both. To lock the state of Michigan into pursuit of the proposed Fermi 3 is a colossal travesty.”

Reporters and the public can watch the GE Annual Meeting during a live webcast at 10 am EDT on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at  www.ge.com/investors/index.html.