Reposit waste
Japan and the coming earthquakes in Baltic Sea region
Let the earthquake in Japan give us a reminder of what earthquakes in Baltic Sea region can achieve in the future. Let us now recall what geology professor Nils-Axel Mörner and others have warned about – again and again: the coming mega earthquakes in Baltic Sea region over the next 100,000 years – when nuclear waste is alleged to be safely and securely berried in the bedrock at Forsmark and Olkiluotto. Nils-Axel Morner has documented 59 earthquakes in Sweden after the ice age, many of which were even larger than 8 on the Richter scale. In the very Forsmark area there have been five earthquakes in the period 10.150-2.900 years before today.
The nuclear waste repository building SKB.se have argued that to the maximum there will only be one earthquake with magnitude 7 in the next 1 million years, although Nils-Axel Morner has documented 5 such earthquakes just in past 10,000 years! The math boggles. In the last 5000 years, we have documented 11 earthquakes in Sweden – the last with a magnitude of 7 just 900 years ago. There are absolutely no guarantees that a KBS-3 repository will keep intact within the promised 100,000 years – rather the evidence suggests that there is no chance for that.
See Mörner´s PP with previous earthquake maps etc : morner geology bst 2010
Let the incident in Japan give us a reminder of this!
Read Mörner´s books: The Eternal Wastes (PQR-cultural, 2009) and just in January 2011 published 714 page book in English The Tsunami Threat.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Quaternary International 242 (2011) journal: www.else vier.com/locate/quaint
Paleoseismology: The application of multiple parameters in four case studies in Sweden. Nils-Axel Mörner. Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics
Study the maps of earthquakes, Fig. 3 etc :
Mörner. Paleoseismic Journal. May 2011
The world is in desperate need of seismic hazard assessments for the near future as well
as the very far distance when it concerns nuclear waste handling. This calls for long-term records of past and present earthquake events as illustrated in Fig. 1. Only by combining seismological records with historical data and events traced by paleoseismology are we able to achieve a meaningful hazard assessment, however. It should be noted that past traces left in the geological records imply a minimum magnitude of the causation event of 5.5e6.0 on the Richter scale.
Many different primary and secondary effects of an earthquake can be used in order to reconstruct and determine a paleoseismic event. In this case we advocate the application of multiple criteria. Four case studies in Sweden are examined; two late-glacial and two Late Holocene events. Special accounts are given of bedrock fracturing away from the primary fault, liquefaction (with multiple phases and struc-tureless sand layers), tsunami, distribution of seabed turbidites, dating by varves, methane venting tectonics and magnetic grain rotation. The multitude of observational data related to all four cases are combined into simple tables where the environmental and spatial effects can be explicitly assessed in terms of documentation, intensity and magnitude.
ECRR scientist rubbishes the draft of the SKB Forsmark Environmental Impact Statement
ECRR Baltic Sea Regional Office Press Release, Stockholm, 5th Feb 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_8881z6qXk
Press release: ecrr press
Baltic Sea Regional ECRR report: ecrr forsmark
In a 21 page report published today and to be presented to SKB on 6th Feb as part of the stakeholder dialogue relating to the Environmental Impact of the proposed Forsmark waste repository, Prof. Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk based in Brussels made serious criticisms of the SKB EIS. His report mainly draws attention to the lack of any modelling of radioactive dispersion or exposures to humans and ecosystems from radioactivity emerging from the proposed repository. The report draws attention to the fact that the SKB employs the obsolete and erroneous radiation risk model of the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP, an organisation that was based in Sweden but which has now moved to the UK. Prof Busby argues that this risk model, which predicted no harm from the Chernobyl accident and no problems associated with living near nuclear sites has now been overtaken by experimental and epidemiological evidence, which is presented in some detail in the paper.
Prof Busby, an international expert on the health effects of radiation was dismissive:
You cannot present an Environment Impact Statement without some kind of credible mathematical modelling. There is none in this report nor any of the documents added. I don’t know what these people think they are doing, but the report itself is meaningless. It is stuffed full of coloured pictures of wildlife, ducks, flowers, frogs, as if this colourful wildlife and happiness is what SKB are bringing to Sweden, rather than a very large amount of dangerous radioactive waste and hundreds of tons of uranium which they will put under the already seriously polluted Baltic Sea where they hope it won’t get out. Of course, eventually it will and will poison the sea, its creatures and all the people living on its shores. This just won’t do.
Astonishingly, the EIS barely mentions radiation risk. There is one section (3.4, page 37) where the document refers to the ICRP model: however no modelling of dose or exposure is to be found anywhere in any of the documents examined. Even where the radiation exposures are discussed, the EIS makes very erroneous statements and gives misleading information. For example, on p 37 we are told that after 100,000 years all that will remain is natural uranium minerals. This is not true: there will be massively enhanced levels of both U-238 and also the more radioactive U-235 and U-234. The bar graph on p 38 appears to show that the radioactivity will decay to 0.0005% of its initial value after 100,000 years; however, most of the material is uranium. Since this has a half life of billions of years, there will be virtually no change in its quantity over the 100,000 years of the graph on p 38.
The report recommends that the SKB develop credible mathematical risk models for their project and in doing so, employ the radiation risk model of the ECRR published in 2003 and being updated in 2010 (www.euradcom.org)
Check the reported amounts of nuclear waste in most of the countries:
On the IAEA webbsite database
http://newmdb.iaea.org/datacentre.aspx
Espoo Convention law gives every neighbouring country the right to object to hazardous plans of industrial activity
Both Sweden and Finland have come up with a plan to store their most dangerous radioactive waste (their spent nuclear fuel) – which nobody in the world knows how to take care of – at the coasts of the Baltic Sea!
However, this is not a private matter for the two countries to decide: international law (Espoo Convention and the Sea protokoll) gives every neighbouring country the right to object to these plans. Make your voice heard – ask your governments to protest, before it is too late!
For more see Law & Structure (last on the right)
Forsmark (Sweden) and Olkiluoto (Finland) as the final repositories of Europe or even – the world
Ulla Klötzer, Anti-Nuclear Magasine, on the right side of this page
“Göran Sundqvist, sociologist at the univeristy of Gothenburg,has followed up the waste question for 15 years. In an interview in June 2008 he stated that ”Forsmark might become the final repository of Europe”. Even if the Swedish law today prohibits such a solution the question will become extremely important within the EU in the near future. According to Sundqvist EU would be stupid if it would deal with this matter by force and directives. Instead it is very likely that they will call for common responsibility and co-operation.
Considering the fact that new reactors in Finland to a great extent would produce electricity for export and that the big European energy companies in one way or another are involved with each other, the spent fuel produced can be considered as foreign waste. The next step – to regard spent fuel as common goods and repositories as common service – is not too far away!”
(…) “First operating final repository in Olkiluoto will most likely will be the first operating one in the whole world. In IAEA as well as European Union circles it has many times been mentioned that the best solution for the highly radioactive waste might be to have only a few common repositories in the world. If Finland as the first country in the world opens a repository it is very likely that this repository also will have to open up for spent fuel from other parts of the EU.”
Anti-Nuclear Magasine – nuclear waste repositories in Sweden and Finland
Download it by clicking on the image on Your right side here. You may translate the texts into Your native language and we will gladly provide You with the layout of this magasine to print it.
IAEAs Multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle
INFCIRC/640 – 22 February 2005
… “261. Multinational stores could offer significant economic benefits to both the host and the partner States. Sharing a facility with a few partners can significantly reduce costs”…
…”265. “Assurance of service”, in this context, refers to the “assured storage” of one’s fuel. For operational reasons, nuclear plant operators must be assured that the spent fuel discharged from their reactors will have somewhere to go, once the on-site stores have been filled up. Intermediate storage – pending disposal to reprocessing or to a repository – must therefore be prepared either nationally or internationally”…
