A friend of mine has been freaking out about the possibility of a Cherynobleesque catastrophe happening at the Fukushima reactor in Japan. Doomsayers are predicting a mass extinction event. What say ye Dakkanauts?
It’s been two weeks since I wrote my first piece for End the Lie about Fukushima being a possible mass extinction event, and still no progress to report.
[Editor’s note: it is worth pointing out that the attention Christina’s article received was unprecedented in the history of End the Lie.]
Although, there was a somewhat promising appeal made on April 30, when seventy-two Japanese Non-Governmental Organizations sent an urgent request to the United Nations and Japanese government urging immediate action to stabilize the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 4 spent nuclear fuel. The letter was also endorsed by numerous nuclear experts.
The letter warned the UN and Japanese government that if an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain, a catastrophic radiological fire could ensue.
The letter urged the United Nations to organize a Nuclear Security Summit to take up the crucial problem.
The letter stated that the United Nations should establish an independent assessment team, and coordinate international assistance to stabilize reactor 4′s spent fuel pool in order to prevent a radiological release with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Letters were sent to both UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, the latter asking that Japan ask immediately for the UN’s help.
So that’s good news.
Now, we just have to wait for the UN to have a meeting about it, form some committees, investigate, send a team to Japan, schedule another meeting, go over the committee results, then maybe form some more committees, go over more results, then send a response, and then finally implement a plan of action, if that is what they even decide to do in the end.
And of course all that is dependent on if the spent fuel pool hasn’t fractured, fallen, caught fire, or exploded by then.
For a “downwinder” of a spent fuel pool fire or explosion and large scale radiological release (or in the case of Fukushima, a “northern hemisphere resident”) you will need anywhere from 2 weeks to a 2 year supply of food, water, toiletries, medications, diapers, pet food, and a designated area for pets to go to the bathroom inside your shelter, among many other things.
The amount of time spent sheltering in will vary greatly on a wide array of variables, such as, how long it takes to put the nuclear fuel fire out, or burn itself out.
That being said, nuclear fuel is essentially “a fire that never stops burning.”
Don’t worry about stockpiling gas, you won’t be going anywhere. That is of course if you lack the financial resources to leave everything behind and bug out to the southern hemisphere.
It may be advisable to have weapons in case your neighbors run out of supplies, and want yours.
So essentially, you will need all the same things you would for a collapse of the economy, it’s just that you won’t be able to go outside.
As a downwinder, one of the only differences in your “shelter” will be the further down you go into the ground, the better off you will be due to gamma rays.
And speaking of gamma rays, in Arnie Gundersen’s recent interview with KGO Radio, he said in regards to spent fuel pool 4:
Gamma rays inside reactor 2
“Let’s assume that it didn’t fall, but went dry a hundred feet in the air, it would be a beacon, but instead of a beacon of light, it would be a beacon of radiation, and bathe the site in high levels of radiation. That’s not something that you want because it would make work on other units darn near impossible…The gamma rays, forget the particles that get caught in your lungs, but the gamma rays would go up and bounce off air molecules and come down as a shine of radiation over the site, and it would go right through those suits and the guys would be exposed from the ‘sky shine’ …”
So let’s talk about that for a minute.
When I wrote my first piece for End the Lie “Fukushima is falling apart: are you ready?” I withheld some important information. Sort of like Tepco always does. They feed you little bits of information here and there, because they knew you couldn’t take it all at once.
The real danger with this precarious spent fuel pool situation is not just the spent fuel pool in reactor 4. It’s all the reactors, and all the spent fuel pools, including the granddaddy common spent fuel pool which is only about 50 meters from reactor 4.
If the spent fuel pool goes up, the radiation release would be so high that the workers would have to abandon the site, which means no one is holding the hoses watering down everything and keeping it from going up in one giant fire or explosion or radioactive cloud of death.
If the wind blows south to the Daini Plant, they would have to abandon that site. If blows north to Onagawa, they would have to abandon that site, and so on and so on.
Need some verification of this?
Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr. Mitsuhei Murata, was invited to speak at the Public Hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, on the Fukushima nuclear power plants accident.
Before the Committee, Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4 – with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground – collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4.
In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel. Indeed, they are open to the air, which is quite dangerous.
This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced.
He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries.
Ambassador Murata informed us that the total number of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375).
As the eminent German physicist Dr. Hans-Peter Durr said ten months ago, if the spent fuel pool spills, we will be in a situation where science never imagined we could be.
And Former U.N. adviser Akio Matsumura – whose praises have been sung by Mikhail Gorbachev, was told that if the fuel pool at unit 4 collapses or the water spills out, so much radiation will spew out for 50 years that no one will be able to approach Fukushima.
It gets, if you can believe it, just a little worse. Because you see, if no one in the path of this plume can leave their houses, or go to school, or go to work and of course some of us work – you guessed it – at nuclear plants in the United States and in Canada and in Europe.
Well, I’m sure you can see where that is heading.
The other option is, that our wonderful sources of nuclear power could all be shut down in advance, which means you’d be smart to add all the items you could possibly need for 2 weeks to 2 years without electricity to your supply list.
Or, make a reservation at your friendly neighborhood FEMA camp instead. This is the reality of our choice to let nuclear power into our lives. And you thought we were FUBAR just from the one little spent fuel pool?
Albert Einstein said that nuclear power would eventually kill its users. It appears Einstein was right again.
Whatever sense of urgency you had about this situation in the past few weeks, multiply that by 104 or so, if not more.
Call, post, email, protest, and do whatever it takes to get someone to listen.
In the meantime mitigate for radiation exposure, and keep sending pictures of mutated flowers, trees, fruit, and vegetables.
Economic collapse would be a walk in the park in comparison to what humanity is facing with Fukushima. At least, you could have one there if you wanted to. Just don’t pick the mutated dandelions.
Please send mutation images to christinax4@yahoo.com. Shoot at the highest resolution possible, and include your name, location, and date the mutation was found, for proper credit if the images are published. If it is from store-bought produce, include the location where it was grown and purchased. The more information you provide, the better you will be helping the rest of us.
Please help Christina purchase a spectrometer in order to get the most accurate radiation readings and thus get you the most precise information possible by shopping through her Amazon link or donate directly via PayPal to fukushimafacts@gmail.com. Keep in mind, this is expensive equipment and it is the only way that specific isotope readings can be obtained from food items.
Minor editing by Madison Ruppert
Christina Consolo is a former clinical researcher supervisor with NIH credentialing; a former Member-at-Large for the Board of Directors, Ophthalmic Photographers’ Society; A peer reviewer for the Journal of Ophthalmic Photography; She has written, published, and contributed to numerous scientific research in retinal imaging and ophthalmogy for the past 24 years; She is also an award-winning biomedical photographer and maintains several websites to teach people about radiation, mitigation, and other nuclear issues. She is also the host of “Nuked Radio” Tuesdays & Thursdays from 12-1:00 pm EST on the Orion Talk Radio Network.
For more info including mitigation for radiation exposure, please visit FukushimaFacts.com, where you can sign up to receive Fallout Forecasts on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
Kilkrazy wrote:Chernobyl sent clouds all over Europe and Asia.
Which caused food contaminations even in Germany.
Of course, the public was only informed decades later.
As I mentioned in another thread, the problem with radioactivity is that there are no "safe" levels. The radiation already present in nature (by exposure to the sun, etc.) is already bad enough for us, anything more is simply like smoking three cigarettes a day instead of two.
Although this is by no means reason to panic (after all, even many heavy smokers live long lives) I think that even a minor increase in exposure should not be underestimated. Any little bit has the potential to "hurt" your cells and DNA more.
I just thought it was kind of funny. My friend was tripping out ranting about how we're all going to be dead and the land will be blighted and the oceans shall run green with waste and blah blah blah.
It's definitely not a good thing, but I don't think it's going to be a mass extinction event like these guys are saying.
The level of fear-mongering and hysteria surrounding the Fukushima reactor is just horrific. Tens of thousands of people died in the Tsunami. That's the real trajedy. Instead we get "Oh the noes! Nuk-u-lar power is the evils!!!1".
I think the first step to developing well informed opinions on the world is to stop reading websites called things like End the Lie.
In other news, radiation is a highly technical subject with many complex, interacting factors. Unfortunately, all most of us know about it is 'radiation sucks' and 'Chernobyl was really bad', which means anyone that wants to terrify people and ride on the wave of activism can just spout a load of technical gibberish and conclude that something is really terrifyingly radioactive and deadly, and there's not much we can do to unpick their technical gibberish.
Personally, I'm going to figure that since people who are experts in nuclear science aren't freaking the hell out and making lots of noise about this, the stuff in that End the Lie piece is probably not very true.
A lot of you seem to miss the wide middle ground between 'everything is fine', and 'we are all doomed'.
Fukushima may be more damaged than current estimates as it is very hot inside and the true damage has not been inspected, nor can it be. If there are structural faults that worsen over time a long term leak is possible. This can occur on any scale.
However while it is unlikely that the reactor will 'collapse' as it is well built, it is equally unlikely to be completely tight. I expect some degradation over time and I expect it will be a problem. A sarcophagus may be necessary.
We (UK) have people from our nuclear industry assisting the Japanese with the mess that is Fukushima, one of whom is a good friend of mine.
There is no danger of a catastrophic event of the type mentioned in the original post. Things are, however, apparently 'significantly different to the official line'. He can't tell me any more or any specifics as he is bound by the official secrets act.
I'd love to know what is actualy going on though.
Kilkrazy wrote:Chernobyl sent clouds all over Europe and Asia.
Which caused food contaminations even in Germany.
Of course, the public was only informed decades later.
That's probably why modern Europe is a nuclear wasteland.
Nuclear power is completely safe, just ask the thousands of coal miners who die every year. Or the people who choke to death on smog in the third world.
Wow, it is almost as if the writer of that 'article' had some kind of agenda against nuclear power/to get more hits for the site...
I only made it part way through before the hyperbole exploded, filling the internet full of biasising blogiation and killing all computer users in the northern hemisphere, causing all the luddites to be left without anyone to run society for them, leading to the collapse of the developed world...
My sis works in the Nuclear Industry. As far as she knows, and bearing in mind the events in Japan were examined through a microscope by Nuclear companies the world over, the 'type' of reactor that was used in the Fukushima plant makes any kind of 'meltdown' in the style of Chernobyl impossible. Like, physically impossible (because of the laws of physics and all that).
SilverMK2 wrote:Wow, it is almost as if the writer of that 'article' had some kind of agenda against nuclear power/to get more hits for the site...
I only made it part way through before the hyperbole exploded, filling the internet full of biasising blogiation and killing all computer users in the northern hemisphere, causing all the luddites to be left without anyone to run society for them, leading to the collapse of the developed world...
Fukushima disaster sparked an 'anti-atomic industry' movement here in Thailand, While at least 3 nuke plants are planned in Isaan region. all are faced with protest when the construction process IS about to begin. that was during the previous government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote:My sis works in the Nuclear Industry. As far as she knows, and bearing in mind the events in Japan were examined through a microscope by Nuclear companies the world over, the 'type' of reactor that was used in the Fukushima plant makes any kind of 'meltdown' in the style of Chernobyl impossible. Like, physically impossible (because of the laws of physics and all that).
So, there we go!
A fission reactor in Fukushima was built by American technology. which Military fission reactor (one that creates nuke bombs) and Civil fission reactor (one that generates heat for steam-powered turbine power generator) are separated ones. while in Soviets. a reactor for power plant may be used for nuke bomb making facility.
Fukashima was old tech, and if built today would have a failsafe of a piece of ice constantly kept cool, if the power had gone out the ice would have melted, the reactor contents would have gone into a cooling chamber and there would have been no meltdown.
We should still spend more on researching fusion. But nuclear is, even with the tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima, far safer than coal, as it doesn't kill a million people a year.
But still Chernobyl was bad, they had deformed babies, and cows with two heads, and trees growing upside down and all sorts of crazy things happen.
dæl wrote:Fukashima was old tech, and if built today would have a failsafe of a piece of ice constantly kept cool, if the power had gone out the ice would have melted, the reactor contents would have gone into a cooling chamber and there would have been no meltdown.
We should still spend more on researching fusion. But nuclear is, even with the tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima, far safer than coal, as it doesn't kill a million people a year.
But still Chernobyl was bad, they had deformed babies, and cows with two heads, and trees growing upside down and all sorts of crazy things happen.
WHAT! are you saying that there's 'Brahmin' there around Chernobyl? deformed babies and 'mutated' 'tards are confirmed.
If i remember rightly the biggest concern with Chernobyl was the reactor falling down onto the water table, which was stopped by a massive sacrifice of emergancy workers lives, knowning the dose they where taking would be fatal.
This does seem to be scare mongering, although if anyone thinks our goverments would actually tell us about a serious concern that could be catistrophic to the population, they are sadly kidding themselves.
If all the northern leaders suddenly go on holiday into the southern hemisphere, it time to panic.
dæl wrote:Fukashima was old tech, and if built today would have a failsafe of a piece of ice constantly kept cool, if the power had gone out the ice would have melted, the reactor contents would have gone into a cooling chamber and there would have been no meltdown.
We should still spend more on researching fusion. But nuclear is, even with the tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima, far safer than coal, as it doesn't kill a million people a year.
But still Chernobyl was bad, they had deformed babies, and cows with two heads, and trees growing upside down and all sorts of crazy things happen.
WHAT! are you saying that there's 'Brahmin' there around Chernobyl? deformed babies and 'mutated' 'tards are confirmed.
Actual two headed cow was in the US it seems, found these though
H.B.M.C. wrote:The level of fear-mongering and hysteria surrounding the Fukushima reactor is just horrific. Tens of thousands of people died in the Tsunami. That's the real trajedy. Instead we get "Oh the noes! Nuk-u-lar power is the evils!!!1".
To be fair, tens of thousands of people are born anew every year. It's horrible, but population numbers will grow again. However, if these people are born with a lower lifespan, deformities and/or sterility, they will be punished for generations, for mistakes made by their forefathers.
It's less the amount of people currently affected by the incident, but that Japan will have to deal with the results for centuries or millennia to come, depending on which of the leaked material's half-life you'd be looking at.
And Japan is punished twice here due to the small area it has available for settlement and agriculture.
dæl wrote:Fukashima was old tech
Heh, that's what they said about Chernobyl before Fukushima happened. "Nooo, it totally cannot happen again. Today's power plants are totally safe, we took care to implement a million safety systems. Trust the lobby, they know what they're talking about!"
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up. I'm assuming the near-meltdown in Sweden is already forgotten these days, too.
Wake up. Nuclear power is a business, and saving money left and right is what makes a company successful, safety and human lives be damned. Why do you think most of the deaths in the coal mining industry happen? This is no different.
Nuclear power plants cannot even be insured because of the cost, so the operators know that it's an "all or nothing" deal for them. Might as well save a few bucks and pray it all works out. Only problem is, if something goes wrong it's an entire country that has to suffer the consequences - both in taxpayer money as well as a decline in health.
Also, seriously, when you count the coal miner deaths as casualties in the debate, you must do the same for the people who die due to the mining of uranium (etc). Coal miner deaths are a common argument brought forward by the lobby to point fingers, but don't you find it strange that they rarely talk about uranium mining? Do people think this stuff grows in the plants?
"South of the Pandora mine, in Monticello, Utah, a uranium-processing mill operated through World War II until 1960. Children at the time would play in the tailings piles and drink water from the millponds. People living in the shadow of the mill knew not to hang laundry on windy days because their linens would turn yellow from the mill's dust. Now, 600 cases of cancer -- a number that is growing each year -- have been confirmed among current and former Monticello residents. The town has a population of just under 2,000. The Utah Department of Health has finally labeled what is occurring in Monticello as a cancer cluster that does not appear to be a random occurrence."
But hey, as long as the cash keeps flowing, right?
Lynata wrote:
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up. I'm assuming the near-meltdown in Sweden is already forgotten these days, too.
Wake up. Nuclear power is a business, and saving money left and right is what makes a company successful, safety and human lives be damned. Why do you think most of the deaths in the coal mining industry happen? This is no different.
I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.
Lynata wrote:
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up. I'm assuming the near-meltdown in Sweden is already forgotten these days, too.
Wake up. Nuclear power is a business, and saving money left and right is what makes a company successful, safety and human lives be damned. Why do you think most of the deaths in the coal mining industry happen? This is no different.
I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.
It does cause Quakes...
And yes, there have been mutations because of Chernobyl...
Their was a major book released about it and documenting the mutations in the last few years
Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?
Lynata wrote:
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up
Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.
Pacific wrote:My sis works in the Nuclear Industry. As far as she knows, and bearing in mind the events in Japan were examined through a microscope by Nuclear companies the world over, the 'type' of reactor that was used in the Fukushima plant makes any kind of 'meltdown' in the style of Chernobyl impossible. Like, physically impossible (because of the laws of physics and all that).
So, there we go!
Perhaps your sis thought you too panicky or slow to speak rationally too you. Perhaps not.
Nuclear accidents does not equal meltdown, thats only the worst stage and even at Chernobyl this was at least partly averted. Nuclear accidents include gas leaks, coolant leaks etc etc. Fukushima might not be able to go bang (?not a fast breeder reactor?) but that isn't to say it cannot get to be unhealthy.
The whole idea that Fukushima cannot go bang so therefore its safe " So, there we go! " can best be described as blind optimism based on ignorance. Sorry to break it to you but half-lives don't play to our timescales. In political society, a decade is very long term political planning and most officials cannot see beyond a month. A wrecked reactor needs containment for millenia. That sucks more than most care to realise.
Daedricbob wrote:We (UK) have people from our nuclear industry assisting the Japanese with the mess that is Fukushima, one of whom is a good friend of mine.
There is no danger of a catastrophic event of the type mentioned in the original post. Things are, however, apparently 'significantly different to the official line'. He can't tell me any more or any specifics as he is bound by the official secrets act.
I'd love to know what is actualy going on though.
Ominous and interesting. Nuclear leakage has slow invisible but not imperceptible long term effects. It makes sense to keep those under wraps from the masses. After all as expressed often enough here on this thread most people cannot discern any median between safe and disaster, so if the existant threat of Fukushima was revealed people will likely panic and assume the worst. There is likely to be leakage of some sort. It may not even be much, but any amount will have social and political ramifications and thus will need to be held with confidentiality.
Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?
Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.
Lynata wrote:
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up
Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.
I'm forced to agree with our conservative friend over here.
Fukushima and Chernobyl have nothing in common and Fukushima resisted a 7.1 earthquake followed by a tsunami! I'd say that that is a pretty resistant power plant...
Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?
Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.
So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.
Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?
Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.
So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.
Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?
Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.
So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.
At least earthquakes are cool...
Freezing to death would suck...
Not according to the gas companies that want to start using it extensively in Britain. Could they be lying to make money while endangering thousands of people?
Unless you have a sexual fetish for freezing to death I don't see the problem.
So the options are freeze to death or get earthquakes, thanks for clarifying. There was me thinking there were other options.
Pay through your nose to subsidise the Russian state?
If we exploited shale gas, you'd shave hundreds of pounds off the average houshold's bills - that's a huge boost to aggregate demand right there.
dæl wrote:I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.
True. Granted, "saving money" may happen under government authority as well (tight budgets? internal issues?) but it is notably less likely to happen. Personally, I am of the opinion that any such basic necessities should be run/provided by the state, but people would probably regard that as "communist".
AustonT wrote:Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.
It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.
When dealing with a force as dangerous as this, I daresay that inability to withstand natural phenomena or human error is "fail", as both of these WILL occur, at some time, on some day.
tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.
Now, this is nothing serious, but it goes to show that things have never been running smoothly. There are German power plants with an even more impressive/scary track record, though. Globally, there's a looong list of incidents available for a long list of nuclear plants. Most of it just doesn't become breaking news because the operators managed to get it back under control and/or because of a cover-up. For Fukushima, we now know that warnings from safety inspectors were ignored and their reports locked away simply because they were "inconvenient". The old energy control commission in Japan was directly subservient to the Ministry of Trade, Economics and Industry, which was naturally more interested in a booming economy than regulating the power companies.
In the end, I guess you could say that the technology itself is not to blame. Humanity is simply unable to use it properly.
purplefood wrote:
At least earthquakes are cool...
Not if your entire country wasn't built to withstand them.
We get thousands of them a year (tens of thousands?) so yeah we are.
0.0000001 on the richter scale doesn't count. That's kind of like saying we have millions of black holes in our bodies, so could survive a black hole in our solar system.
If you want to engage in a discussion on how we get our energy I've started a thread about that, I don't really want to derail two threads to the point of closure in one day with the same discussion.
dæl wrote:I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.
True. Granted, "saving money" may happen under government authority as well (tight budgets? internal issues?) but it is notably less likely to happen. Personally, I am of the opinion that any such basic necessities should be run/provided by the state, but people would probably regard that as "communist".
AustonT wrote:Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.
It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.
When dealing with a force as dangerous as this, I daresay that inability to withstand natural phenomena or human error is "fail", as both of these WILL occur, at some time, on some day.
tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.
Now, this is nothing serious, but it goes to show that things have never been running smoothly. There are German power plants with an even more impressive/scary track record, though. Globally, there's a looong list of incidents available for a long list of nuclear plants. Most of it just doesn't become breaking news because the operators managed to get it back under control and/or because of a cover-up. For Fukushima, we now know that warnings from safety inspectors were ignored and their reports locked away simply because they were "inconvenient". The old energy control commission in Japan was directly subservient to the Ministry of Trade, Economics and Industry, which was naturally more interested in a booming economy than regulating the power companies.
In the end, I guess you could say that the technology itself is not to blame. Humanity is simply unable to use it properly.
Considering my computer and lights are both working, I beg to differ.
Nuclear power is waaaaaaaaaay safer than coal power. Even Chernobyl caused very few casualties, tiny compared to how many die in the production of coal power.
This article is a little too fearmongery for me. You can assess and describe the dangers of further damage to the site without using bad science and scare tactics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Considering my computer and lights are both working, I beg to differ. Nuclear power is waaaaaaaaaay safer than coal power. Even Chernobyl caused very few casualties, tiny compared to how many die in the production of coal power.
The Chernobyl disaster (Ukrainian: Чорнобильська катастрофа, Chornobylʹsʹka katastrofa), was a nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant In the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (then part of the Soviet Union), now in Ukraine. The number of victims is disputed; some have claimed that tens or hundreds of thousands have died as a result of the accident, but these claims are believed by some UN agencies to be wildly exaggerated.[1] Confusion has arisen from the deaths of thousands of emergency and recovery operation workers as well as people living in ‘contaminated’ territories caused by diverse natural causes. During mid-1986 the official Soviet death toll rose from 2 to 31, a figure that has often been repeated. While some claim that deaths as a result of the immediate aftermath and the cleanup operation may number at least 6000,[2] that exceeds the number of workers known to have died from all causes by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian Population. For further information on the indirect health implications, see Chernobyl disaster's effects on human health.
Reports on the impact of the disaster on populations vary widely, but the total deaths aren't small. They generally range between ~10k to ~20k with some reports going much much higher. A similar diaster in Fukishima would have much more widespread effects due to the population density of Japan.
Lynata wrote:
It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.
tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.
Really? Which natural disaster preceded the Chernobyl incident? What fail safes were deactivated at the Fukashima plant?
Joey wrote:Considering my computer and lights are both working, I beg to differ.
Because you know exactly where your power is coming from? Yeah, right.
Joey wrote:Nuclear power is waaaaaaaaaay safer than coal power. Even Chernobyl caused very few casualties, tiny compared to how many die in the production of coal power.
And you don't think this has to do with the coal industry employing way more people, or with the fact that it is next to impossible to accurately assess whether a nuclear worker's death by cancer was caused from him being a smoker or working in a nuclear power plant / mine? Okay.
Nothing that is capable of making entire regions inhabitable is "safe". I'd like to see the coal mine that requires a 30km no-go zone to be erected for centuries to come. Or the coal power plant which needs a sarcophagus for the price of ~810 million dollars and which has to be re-newed every few decades because the material degrades so quickly thanks to coal dust.
AustonT wrote:Really? Which natural disaster preceded the Chernobyl incident? What fail safes were deactivated at the Fukashima plant?
It appears you misunderstood me.
Nuclear power plants should be safe from the effects of natural disaster or human error, as these things are guaranteed to happen. Evidently they are not safe, with both Chernobyl and Fukushima both being perfect examples - ergo it's a risk to keep them.
AustonT wrote:Really? Which natural disaster preceded the Chernobyl incident? What fail safes were deactivated at the Fukashima plant?
It appears you misunderstood me.
Nuclear power plants should be safe from the effects of natural disaster or human error, as these things are guaranteed to happen. Evidently they are not safe, with both Chernobyl and Fukushima both being perfect examples - ergo it's a risk to keep them.
That is a ridiculous contention. Nuclear power plants are safe from the effects of reasonably expected natural disasters not cataclysmic events. Is your flat protected against the impact of a meteor? No? I thought not, your flat is not safe I'm afraid it has been condemned and you have to leave.
I didn't misunderstand a thing you said:
Lynata wrote: It wasn't really different from Chernobyl
H.B.M.C. wrote:The level of fear-mongering and hysteria surrounding the Fukushima reactor is just horrific. Tens of thousands of people died in the Tsunami. That's the real trajedy. Instead we get "Oh the noes! Nuk-u-lar power is the evils!!!1".
To be fair, tens of thousands of people are born anew every year. It's horrible, but population numbers will grow again. However, if these people are born with a lower lifespan, deformities and/or sterility, they will be punished for generations, for mistakes made by their forefathers.
It's less the amount of people currently affected by the incident, but that Japan will have to deal with the results for centuries or millennia to come, depending on which of the leaked material's half-life you'd be looking at.
And Japan is punished twice here due to the small area it has available for settlement and agriculture.
dæl wrote:Fukashima was old tech
Heh, that's what they said about Chernobyl before Fukushima happened. "Nooo, it totally cannot happen again. Today's power plants are totally safe, we took care to implement a million safety systems. Trust the lobby, they know what they're talking about!"
Sorry, but these people have kept lying for decades. Fukushima failed not (only) because it was "old tech" (like a lot of other nuclear plants still in operation, for example this one in the US) but because the company wanted to save money. Just like any other corporation.
And if you think that Chernobyl and Fukushima have been the only times something went wrong, then you've missed out on a lot of reports of smaller incidents that happened in nuclear power plants around the globe - as well as how their operators continuously attempt to cover them up. I'm assuming the near-meltdown in Sweden is already forgotten these days, too.
Wake up. Nuclear power is a business, and saving money left and right is what makes a company successful, safety and human lives be damned. Why do you think most of the deaths in the coal mining industry happen? This is no different.
Nuclear power plants cannot even be insured because of the cost, so the operators know that it's an "all or nothing" deal for them. Might as well save a few bucks and pray it all works out. Only problem is, if something goes wrong it's an entire country that has to suffer the consequences - both in taxpayer money as well as a decline in health.
Also, seriously, when you count the coal miner deaths as casualties in the debate, you must do the same for the people who die due to the mining of uranium (etc). Coal miner deaths are a common argument brought forward by the lobby to point fingers, but don't you find it strange that they rarely talk about uranium mining? Do people think this stuff grows in the plants?
"South of the Pandora mine, in Monticello, Utah, a uranium-processing mill operated through World War II until 1960. Children at the time would play in the tailings piles and drink water from the millponds. People living in the shadow of the mill knew not to hang laundry on windy days because their linens would turn yellow from the mill's dust. Now, 600 cases of cancer -- a number that is growing each year -- have been confirmed among current and former Monticello residents. The town has a population of just under 2,000. The Utah Department of Health has finally labeled what is occurring in Monticello as a cancer cluster that does not appear to be a random occurrence."
But hey, as long as the cash keeps flowing, right?
1. So you say that TEPCO is a robber barony. right?
2. Thanks alot. as long as Fusion reaction is not yet being harnessed. Thailand should steer clear from nuclear power plants. I'm not sure how can Vietnamese take care of this 'timebomb' ?
Lone Cat wrote:Thanks alot. as long as Fusion reaction is not yet being harnessed.
There are a few reactors in the world, one in South Korea, one in Oxford, UK. I think there are others. At the moment they take up more power than they give (need massive magnets to contain the reaction) but they have made reactions. Now we just need to make it into a rifle and we have Plasma guns.
AustonT wrote:That is a ridiculous contention. Nuclear power plants are safe from the effects of reasonably expected natural disasters not cataclysmic events. Is your flat protected against the impact of a meteor? No? I thought not, your flat is not safe I'm afraid it has been condemned and you have to leave.
Last I checked, my flat didn't have the capacity to cause cancer or mutations.
If it would do so, then yes, I'd fully approve of it being condemned and shut down. See: asbestos.
Also, the tsunami for Fukushima was reasonably expected. Inspectors warned about it. Alas, since the nuclear lobby has quite a lot of influence in Japan, and because corporations are interested in making as much money as possible, these warnings were dismissed.
AustonT wrote:Which is demonstrably false.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Lone Cat wrote:So you say that TEPCO is a robber barony. right?
Tbh, I don't see much difference between tepco and the other nuclear power companies. I can only speak for the ones that operate in Germany like Vattenfall, but I do not really believe it's different elsewhere in the world.
It's understandable that a corporation wants to maximize its profits - after all, this is expected by their investors - but clearly, in the nuclear industry, this practice should be considered far too dangerous. Should.
That the nuclear lobby also invests a lot of money into blatantly biased PR spins (if one were to actually analyze their contents and not just swallow this "info" without fact-checking) and bribery, and that both the companies as well as the governments have a large track record of downplaying any incidents does not render them more trustworthy, at least to me.
Germany currently also faces controversy over the nuclear repository "Asse II" which now needs to be completely evacuated due to water intake and loss of structural integrity. Unfortunately, many of the 126.000 barrels of nuclear waste were basically "thrown down a hole", forming a chaotic pile of dangerous materials that will be hard or even impossible to recover. Some of these barrels have begun to rust, so time is somewhat of the essence. Projected cost for the operation is at ~4.6 billion dollars, to be shouldered by the taxpayer. \o/
AustonT wrote:That is a ridiculous contention. Nuclear power plants are safe from the effects of reasonably expected natural disasters not cataclysmic events. Is your flat protected against the impact of a meteor? No? I thought not, your flat is not safe I'm afraid it has been condemned and you have to leave.
Last I checked, my flat didn't have the capacity to cause cancer or mutations.
If it would do so, then yes, I'd fully approve of it being condemned and shut down. See: asbestos.
Also, the tsunami for Fukushima was reasonably expected. Inspectors warned about it. Alas, since the nuclear lobby has quite a lot of influence in Japan, and because corporations are interested in making as much money as possible, these warnings were dismissed.
Do you think the anti-nuclear technology people don't use even more rhetoric to demonize nuclear power. As for the Tsunami warnings from the documents I read the wall was built higher than previously experienced Tsunami wave by somewhere between 10-20%. I'd say that's a pretty solid margin.
@Thread
The ridiculous fear of Nuclear technology has impacted the advancements in technology that could have occurred over the last almost 30 years. Thanks 3-Mile Island and Chernobel....
I have friends that nuclear technology is what they do. They have no reason to blow smoke up my tailpipe regarding it's safety level or where our technology is at. I'll take their, and other nuclear scientists, educated and experienced word over ranter on the internet any day.
AustonT wrote:Yep 9.0 earthquakes are common as the rain.
Happened once already. And building a nuclear power plant by gambling that "what has happened once wouldn't happen again" is a mixture of greed and irresponsibility. It's a simple as that.
Hulksmash wrote:Do you think the anti-nuclear technology people don't use even more rhetoric to demonize nuclear power. As for the Tsunami warnings from the documents I read the wall was built higher than previously experienced Tsunami wave by somewhere between 10-20%. I'd say that's a pretty solid margin.
Not high enough than what Tepco's own simulations would have required, so no.
And yes, of course a lot of twisted rhetorics will be used by either side when an issue is hotly debated. However, it shouldn't be hard to assess which side has more money to throw around for manipulation of public opinion or bribery of government officials. Also, it comes down to a simple question of motif. Opponents of nuclear energy aren't "in it" for personal gain but because they fear the effects of this technology on the environment - and rightly so, one should assume. Proponents of nuclear energy, however? The bosses of the energy conglomerates and lobby bigwigs? They're in it only for the money. They don't care about responsibility for the environment or for human lives anymore than what is enforced by a nation's government.
It's both funny and sad that even after Fukushima large parts of the populace still do not realize the danger and downsides this technology comes with. Chernobyl should have been enough of a warning sign, but evidently humanity is a slow learner. How many more accidents of catastrophic scale will it take?
Hulksmash wrote:I have friends that nuclear technology is what they do. They have no reason to blow smoke up my tailpipe regarding it's safety level or where our technology is at. I'll take their, and other nuclear scientists, educated and experienced word over ranter on the internet any day.
Of course not, they wouldn't want to lose their jobs. Just like those inspectors in Japan who remained silent until it was too late. Sadly, them coming forward now is a little too late.
Also, there is quite a number of nuclear scientists who are somewhat more sceptical of the business. Of course, this often means they have it harder finding employment, but still.
How would my friends being straight with me about the current level of safety and technology regarding nuclear power get them fired? Do you really believe there is conspiracy so strong that about nuclear technology that people would lie to family and friends who are like family?
Regarding "accidents of catastrophic scale" how much safer (and it's pretty damn safe at this point) would nuclear techology be if scare mongering hadn't seriously impacted for 3 decades? If king coal (who has a much stronger lobby in Washington than nuclear power) hadn't shoved coal power down america's throat for to long?
Sorry, I'm just tired of the bs that get's thrown around regarding nuclear technology. But I grew up in a state with nuclear power plants bracketing one of the largest population centers in the US and built pretty close to the San Andres fault line. Nuclear scare is just that, a scare.
Hulksmash wrote:How would my friends being straight with me about the current level of safety and technology regarding nuclear power get them fired? Do you really believe there is conspiracy so strong that about nuclear technology that people would lie to family and friends who are like family?
I suppose rather it is likely that people voluntarily working in this industry are prone to be biased, for it does take some personal conviction to do this in spite of the controversy. Naturally, once being employed in such capacity, they would likely gravitate more towards information put forward by their own company rather than "some outsider". It comes with being proud of one's job.
And I have experienced this myself in another industry.
Hulksmash wrote:Regarding "accidents of catastrophic scale" how much safer (and it's pretty damn safe at this point) would nuclear techology be if scare mongering hadn't seriously impacted for 3 decades?
How much cleaner would our world be if ignorance and corruption wouldn't have kept this industry running for so long even after so many events have proven that accidents simply will happen? How many more people could live their lifes without cancer or leukemia or hereditary mutation of their DNA?
The thought that nuclear power plants would have been safer if the energy companies would not have been forced to implement new safety measures just to appease public worries after Chernobyl is mind-boggling. I'm sorry, but after having read about so many incidents caused by neglect and a general unwillingness to invest money into safety, my trust in corporate benevolence is somewhat shaken. If you still believe that the ideal of capitalism is to serve the public, good for you.
How much cleaner would our world be if ignorance and corruption wouldn't have kept this industry running for so long even after so many events have proven that accidents simply will happen? How many more people could live their lifes without cancer or leukemia or hereditary mutation of their DNA?
As a sum total? Less than from oil exploration in Africa or Coal mining in south america and china, but appeals to emotion are still fun. As for "cleaner", that doesn't even make sense. We don't have viable clean energy alternatives right now, and none of the up and comers were viable during the last half century since most required dramatic improvements in materials sciences and chemical science that even now we're not fully masters of.
The thought that nuclear power plants would have been safer if the energy companies would not have been forced to implement new safety measures just to appease public worries after Chernobyl is mind-boggling.
Why? It's true. The lock on new nuclear facilities (in the U.S. at least) directly led to a dip in standards since plants couldn't be "renewed" or "remade" forcing the owners to simply patch existing and often times suboptimal designs, rather than invest in newer and safer ones. Every major nuclear plant failure has occurred in the same type of plant, those plants aren't being made anymore, but we have to keep the old ones because of bs.
I'm sorry, but after having read about so many incidents caused by neglect and a general unwillingness to invest money into safety, my trust in corporate benevolence is somewhat shaken. If you still believe that the ideal of capitalism is to serve the public, good for you.
AustonT wrote:Yep 9.0 earthquakes are common as the rain.
Happened once already. And building a nuclear power plant by gambling that "what has happened once wouldn't happen again" is a mixture of greed and irresponsibility. It's a simple as that.
Wait. Anti-Nuclear writers say things that make nuclear power plant seem unsafe and 4th largest recorded earthquake was predictable? Say it ain't so.
Tepco was also negligent. It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant. Yet it did not adequately follow up on either of these leads.
That's real negligence, greed, and irresponsibility right there, not preparing for a once in a millennium occurrence.
Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.
Tepco was negligent. It knew of geological evidence that an extinction event meteor had hit the Earth in the at the end of the Maastrichtian age of the Cretaceous period. Yet it did not adequately follow up on this lead.
So can you plan for a tsunami event like the one that effected Fukashima? Let's ask:
Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.
AustonT wrote:Wait. Anti-Nuclear writers say things that make nuclear power plant seem unsafe and 4th largest recorded earthquake was predictable? Say it ain't so.
"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."
There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.
AustonT wrote:Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.
You make a brilliant argument there.
AustonT wrote:So can you plan for a tsunami event like the one that effected Fukashima? Let's ask:
Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.
You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?
This isn't about an earthquake of any magnitude happening right underneath the city, this is about the flooding that comes from the oceans. Don't get the two mixed up.
That's real negligence, greed, and irresponsibility right there, not preparing for a once in a millennium occurrence. Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.
Once in a millenia events occur quite often since there are an awful lot of them. The design of Fukishima was inherently flawed, they had a basement emergency power supply whose most logical use was in reaction to a tsunami knocking down the local power grid. Water flows into basements, it would have taken less than was given to flood their basement and cause a meltdown. The mauling of the plant wasn't even necessary, it would have taken a smaller wave then they got. This isn't really a disputed fact, that generation had a lot of issues, and illogically designed redundancies were among them.
Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.
Thats bs, that plant was badly made, badly designed, and badly upkept. That generation of GE plant had numerous design flaws, nearly all of which have been corrected in modern designs. Japan is as "well prepared as anyone", but they weren't prepared for this. They could and should have been.
This battle for the ideology of nuclear power is stupid. Nuclear power is safe when upkept, results in less deaths annually through it's entire infrastructure chain then coal or oil, and produces less harmful output on a day to day basis. It also has enormous risks involved with human operation and design failures and Fukishima was a perfect example of why you plan for obvious contingencies and don't let nuclear regulation get lax. TEPCO was not a well run utility as so many japanese utilities aren't. It suffered from much of the same bureaucratic graft that many Japanese utilities suffer from.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?
The entire disaster would of been prevented if they used a cooling system that didn't require reserve power, if they had a reserve power system that wasn't easily disabled by water, if they had a facility that keept the reserves in a sealed location so that they can't get flooded, if they had walls that were able to keep record size tsunamis out, or at the very least if they didn't put the entire plant on a tsunami risk coastal zone and instead just used some irrigation for water and placed it above the risk zone.
There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.
You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?
You are delusional. Tepco built a 16ft wall and was hit by a 48ft wave. "A few feet higher" My arse. Did you perhaps mean "if they built it twice as tall" hmm I wonder if that would have worked.
But within a few minutes on March 11, the tsunami’s waves tore through the outer wall before easily surging over the 34-foot-high inner one, sweeping away those who had climbed on its top, and quickly taking away most of the town of Taro.
I guess not.
Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?
This realistic.
Go meteor proof your flat.
AustonT wrote:Wait. Anti-Nuclear writers say things that make nuclear power plant seem unsafe and 4th largest recorded earthquake was predictable? Say it ain't so.
"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."
There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.
AustonT wrote:Negligent, Greedy, Irresponsible Dinosaurs: K-T extinction event was preventable.
You make a brilliant argument there.
AustonT wrote:So can you plan for a tsunami event like the one that effected Fukashima? Let's ask:
Professor Hermann Fritz, a tsunami expert from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech), US, said: "Nowhere in the world is as prepared as Japan - but in general you can plan for a magnitude 7 or 7.5 that happens every generation, but not for anything in the 9 range.
You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?
This isn't about an earthquake of any magnitude happening right underneath the city, this is about the flooding that comes from the oceans. Don't get the two mixed up.
There is evidence that at one point in the Earth's history, it rained methane. Should they have prepared for that as well?
Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?
"Hey guys, you ever wonder what'll happen if a wave gets over the walls?"
"Well It'd probably just flood the ground levels a bit, no big deal, most of our machinery is on a raised concrete groundplane well above the first floor."
"Wait, aren't our backups that keep the entire plant from melting down in the basement..?"
*Crickets*
Any implication that there weren't massive inherent design flaws in that plant are just nuclear fanboi bunk. Something that characterizes half of the posts in this thread.
There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869 In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect. You are aware that the whole disaster could have been prevented if the wall would've been a bit higher?
You are delusional. Tepco built a 16ft wall and was hit by a 48ft wave. "A few feet higher" My arse. Did you perhaps mean "if they built it twice as tall" hmm I wonder if that would have worked.
But within a few minutes on March 11, the tsunami’s waves tore through the outer wall before easily surging over the 34-foot-high inner one, sweeping away those who had climbed on its top, and quickly taking away most of the town of Taro.
Japan got hit by a bigger tsunami then that in 1993. In fact, 34 feet as a defensive measure is actually kind of low when you look at record tsunamis. The earthquakes size was certainly impressive, but it wasn't necessary. You point out yourself that the wave had a hell of a lot of overage, so clearly there didn't need to be a once in a millenia even for this to occur. Please, all of you, just read what you're typing. Take five minutes, read it over, check wikipedia, and then make sure it all lines up.
Well it's fear mongering alright.
The levels of radiation are safe enough to eat. It's just worrying that the trout and cod all have some level of radiation directly linked to the Nuclear plant.
Lynata wrote:"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."
There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.
This right here, fething brilliant. I think this thread has been won.
Lynata wrote:"It knew of geological evidence that the region surrounding the plant had been periodically flooded about once every thousand years. In 2008, it performed computer simulations suggesting that a repeat of the devastating earthquake of 869 would lead to a tsunami that would inundate the plant."
There you have it. 869 + 1000 = 1.869
In other words, this flooding was already overdue. Not preparing for it by investing more money to build a higher wall? Yeah, I call that neglect.
This right here, fething brilliant. I think this thread has been won.
AustonT wrote:
Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?
This realistic.
You are quite right. For ancient middle east folk they are too overly Causasian, have overly bright washed clothes with even dyes, and there is no saddle strap showing. You can also tell from the shadows that the sun is at the wrong angle for Jesus to be entering Jerusalem from the Golden Gate in the morning, which is in the middle of the east wall.
AustonT wrote:You are delusional. Tepco built a 16ft wall and was hit by a 48ft wave. "A few feet higher" My arse. Did you perhaps mean "if they built it twice as tall" hmm I wonder if that would have worked.
No, actually I meant meters - my bad. I'm not even sure why I wrote feet there as I don't use the Imperial system myself; must be the "British" factor of this forum/franchise.
Then again, if the inner wall was 34 feet high, it still isn't wrong, is it?
AustonT wrote:Hey you know how realistic your charge of negligence and preventability is?
So ... you're saying that there is nothing that can be done to make nuclear power plants safe?
No, wait - in fact, you'd be right in this. Nothing can ever be 100% safe. So maybe it'd be better if people would simply stay away at least from stuff that isn't absolutely necessary but comes with such a hefty risk that even our children and grandchildren would have to pay for our mistakes.
Frazzled wrote:There is evidence that at one point in the Earth's history, it rained methane. Should they have prepared for that as well?
Well, there is a difference between a past stage of this world and a recurring event of contemporary times.
But feel free to sell all your winter clothes. After all, just because there's evidence that it has gotten really cold in one of the last years doesn't mean that it's bound to happen again.
AustonT actually makes a (somewhat) valid point regarding the meteor-proofing, though. Earth is overdue to being hit by an asteroid as well. Of course, given that we are speaking of timetables that stretch millions of years instead of just hundreds, the variance is quite a bit larger and there is no actual reason for alarm. Doesn't mean we shouldn't put some money into the space program tho. Would suck if mankind would go extinct in 50 years just because nobody bothered to research a viable space laser in 10.
Hands up if you're a Wargamer with NO CONCEPT OF PROBABILITY.
Awesome.
A 1 in 1000 year event does NOT mean that things are "due to happen". This does not happen any more than you being "due to roll a 6+ armour save because you failed the last five"
You seriously make my head hurt. It's like arguing with a creationist (world is 7,000 years old). There will be no headway here. Good luck to you. I'm truly sorry that people like you have prevented further development of what is already an extremely safe and far less ecologically damaging source of energy than the main one currently in use.
Frankly most arguments against nuclear power are largely irrelevant. The price has already been paid, nuclear power exists, waste exist, the waste will be toxic for a long time and will need to be reused or hidden away nice and safe. We must make sure we have the infrastructure to maintain that or we are in for a nasty future.
If for example Japan was to stop using nuclear power, the contaminated materials would still be around and dangerous hundreds of years in the future, wheras the power would not be available. Reactors generate waste, but they also consume waste, fuel recycling and reuse is a key part of nuclear power.
Besides its a global problem. By investing in the nuclear industry we are gambling that we can sustain the infrastructure to contain the waste for the duration of its half life. The time to say no to nuclear power was the 50's, and then we had no choices as TPTB wanted reactors to make stuff to fill rockets.
Enjoy the cheap energy, build deeper mineshafts for the waste and stop dropping old submarine reactor cores in the oceans. That right there is the real ticking bomb.
Hulksmash wrote:@Lynata
You seriously make my head hurt. It's like arguing with a creationist (world is 7,000 years old).
Funny, that's how I feel debating this topic with ardent defenders of nuclear power, too.
But yes, further discussion would seem to be irrelevant. It appears the two of us have read a sufficient amount of material to form a rather solid opinion that is unlikely to change - at least we can agree on that.
Orlanth wrote:Frankly most arguments against nuclear power are largely irrelevant. The price has already been paid, nuclear power exists, waste exist, the waste will be toxic for a long time and will need to be reused or hidden away nice and safe. We must make sure we have the infrastructure to maintain that or we are in for a nasty future.
Is that a reason to just continue fething up the ecosystem, though? "The damage has been done, let's just go on and pray it doesn't get worse."
The price hasn't been paid. The price goes up, year by year, the more waste is produced, the more regions of the world get contaminated by nuclear incidents, and the more people's health gets affected by its effects. Every generation will have a higher price to pay. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to this.
Also, disposal of nuclear waste is a little more complicated than just throwing the barrels down into a deep hole. Germany has been looking for a suitable "final depository" for 20 years now, but all sites investigated so far were considered unsafe because containment of the radioactive material couldn't be guaranteed. Actually, tectonic movement, leakage and air conditions become more unsafe the deeper you drill, and there's a big risk with the ground water getting contaminated. Ironically, it's far safer to store radioactive waste in the plants themselves rather than dumping it elsewhere, because at least here you'd be able to continuously monitor the condition of its containers.
Maybe in 50-100 years we'll be able to shoot this stuff into the sun. That would be the only safe method of disposal.
Orlanth wrote:Enjoy the cheap energy, build deeper mineshafts for the waste and stop dropping old submarine reactor cores in the oceans. That right there is the real ticking bomb.
It's not "cheap energy" when you add the cost of clean-up to the bill, be it for Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Asse II. And that's just the major feth-ups. Of course, this is just money that has to be paid by the taxpayer, not the corporations... who couldn't even afford it. Hell, it's not even "cheap" (compared to some of the more modern solutions such as hydro or geothermal) when you'd just add all the actual cost such as mining, transportation, refits, construction and decommissioning on top of day-to-day operations. I did notice that a lot of pro-nuclear websites hide these numbers from their "calculations", and this is several billions of dollars. Much of it in subsidies.
Well, let me rephrase that - it's "cheap" when you're counting only what you pay on your electricity bill. An arbitrary number that, by now, has little to do with the actual cost of this energy source and which only serves to finance the operator's continued existence. I assume mankind has simply miscalculated; nuclear power wouldn't be so prominent today if the companies back then had known what would happen over the decades. Now they only want to protect their investments, naturally.
Hulksmash wrote:
. It's like arguing with a creationist (world is 7,000 years old).
I came to the same conclusion
Because you were arguing against a fish in a barrel rather than anything relating to a realistic or measured argument (and you wouldn't respond to me ).
mattyrm wrote: Reading this thread reminded me why I hate hippies.
Nuclear power.. there is no energy problem.
Reading this article reminded me why I hate people who have a poor grasp of history, logical theory, or basic physics but still like to shout for their team. Everyone taking sides in this debate is wrong about something in their posts since taking a side requires a certain lack of knowledge concerning the subject matter.
mattyrm wrote: Reading this thread reminded me why I hate hippies.
Nuclear power.. there is no energy problem.
Reading this article reminded me why I hate people who have a poor grasp of history, logical theory, or basic physics but still like to shout for their team. Everyone taking sides in this debate is wrong about something in their posts since taking a side requires a certain lack of knowledge concerning the subject matter.
Reading this thread reminded me of that old song, Radioactive.
dæl wrote:I absolutely agree, all power stations should be nationalised as private companies will always place private concerns ahead of public ones. But this isn't just a nuclear problem, look at fracking and the fact it might cause earthquakes.
True. Granted, "saving money" may happen under government authority as well (tight budgets? internal issues?) but it is notably less likely to happen. Personally, I am of the opinion that any such basic necessities should be run/provided by the state, but people would probably regard that as "communist".
AustonT wrote:Fukushima didn't fail because it was old, it did not "fail" at all. It happened because of a cyclopian natural disaster. The age of the plant, and the actions of the staff exacerbated the issue. The only thing Fukushima and Chernobyl have in common is that they are both incidents rated a level 7, and Fukushima's inclusion in that category is rather dubious. Beyond that the two incidents share no similarity.
It wasn't really different from Chernobyl; I imagine that plant would've continued to run just fine as well if its staff did not push the wrong buttons at the wrong time.
When dealing with a force as dangerous as this, I daresay that inability to withstand natural phenomena or human error is "fail", as both of these WILL occur, at some time, on some day.
tl;dr: it's always about "exacerbating the issue" - nuclear power plants don't blow up all of a sudden, they require something to set the catastrophe in motion. They should be designed to neutralize this something so as to ensure continued safe operation, but apparently this doesn't seem possible. In this, Chernobyl and Fukushima are very much alike.
Now, this is nothing serious, but it goes to show that things have never been running smoothly. There are German power plants with an even more impressive/scary track record, though. Globally, there's a looong list of incidents available for a long list of nuclear plants. Most of it just doesn't become breaking news because the operators managed to get it back under control and/or because of a cover-up. For Fukushima, we now know that warnings from safety inspectors were ignored and their reports locked away simply because they were "inconvenient". The old energy control commission in Japan was directly subservient to the Ministry of Trade, Economics and Industry, which was naturally more interested in a booming economy than regulating the power companies.
In the end, I guess you could say that the technology itself is not to blame. Humanity is simply unable to use it properly.
I really have to disagree with the statement of "Fukushima and Chernobyl weren't really that different."
What a load of horse pooey. I don't work in this industry, but I have done a fair amount of reading regarding the failure of Chernobyl.
Firstly, it was a first generation reactor, which were incredibly unsafe. Think of a prototype, with relatively few engineered safeguards in place. Second, the amount of human error involved which made Chernobyl happen was it's main cause. During the test, which subsequently caused the accident, they not only turned off the turbine which was the backup to prevent such a incident, they did a freaking shift change, without informing the new shift of what what had occurred in the test. Also, they didn't know about the problem within a timely manner because of a faulty warning system in the control room. If this had been working properly, they well would have had enough time to prevent the disaster.
The type of Fukushima reactor is 'a BWR Mark 1' designed and built by General Electric in the 60's and 70's. GE Hitachi Nuclear released a statement as to the reliability of the design, and how heavily used these 'workhorse' reactors are. Granted it is a press release from the company refuting claims. You can bet your paycheck this reactor was not of the same generation as Chernobyl.
Also, in the top of the article GE Hitachi Nuclear states: "The NRC database of nuclear power plants shows that 23 of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. are GE boiling-water reactors with GE's Mark I systems for containing radioactivity, the same containment system used by the reactors in trouble at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant.
You can also do more research on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commissions website, where they list every reactor in the US, and its associated information, even inspection reports , for every reactor, which were conducted shortly after The Fukushima incident.
I cannot understand how people can be so hyper-sensitive to the potential of negative consequences from nuclear energy, and at the same time almost completely indifferent the real and very immediate negative consequences of generating energy from coal.
Orlanth wrote:Frankly most arguments against nuclear power are largely irrelevant. The price has already been paid, nuclear power exists, waste exist, the waste will be toxic for a long time and will need to be reused or hidden away nice and safe. We must make sure we have the infrastructure to maintain that or we are in for a nasty future.
Is that a reason to just continue fething up the ecosystem, though? "The damage has been done, let's just go on and pray it doesn't get worse."
The price hasn't been paid. The price goes up, year by year, the more waste is produced, the more regions of the world get contaminated by nuclear incidents, and the more people's health gets affected by its effects. Every generation will have a higher price to pay. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to this.
Evidently you don't understand.
1. The actual volumes of high toxicity waste is actually rather small by volume. Got a facility capable of storing some, and it is likely able to store a whole lot more. Waste is here to stay, whether we stop now or never the same facilities must be constructed, expanding the volume of waste containment facilities is hump change compared to providing them to begin with.
2. The worst waste can normally by recycled and reused providing extra power and absorbing a large portion of the waste. This function is lost if the hippies and hysteria struck envirolobbyists get their way. Here let the boffins explain it to you:
Why it is ignorant to fully stop civil/commercial nuclear programs:
Over the last 50 years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself.
In the last decade interest has grown in recovering all long-lived actinides together (i.e. with plutonium) so as to recycle them in fast reactors so that they end up as short-lived fission products. This policy is driven by two factors: reducing the long-term radioactivity in high-level wastes, and reducing the possibility of plutonium being diverted from civil use – thereby increasing proliferation resistance of the fuel cycle. If used fuel is not reprocessed, then in a century or two the built-in radiological protection will have diminished, allowing the plutonium to be recovered for illicit use (though it is unsuitable for weapons due to the non-fissile isotopes present).
Nice. Not turning off the reactors allows us to reduce high level waste by 80% and reduce long term toxicity of said waste. This is better than I expected.
sebster wrote:I cannot understand how people can be so hyper-sensitive to the potential of negative consequences from nuclear energy, and at the same time almost completely indifferent the real and very immediate negative consequences of generating energy from coal.
Fusion power would be our salvation, once we enter the Hydrgen age all things will be golden. We need to put the sun in a box, the hard part is building said box.
Well if it works, if it isn't horrendously expensive, and if the fuel is common, then it could be. If so, I'm for an Apollo style program converting the US economy to a hydrogen/fusion economy within 5 years.
VermGho5t wrote:I really have to disagree with the statement of "Fukushima and Chernobyl weren't really that different."
What a load of horse pooey. I don't work in this industry, but I have done a fair amount of reading regarding the failure of Chernobyl. [...]
I have read and watched a rather large amount of information about Chernobyl as well. Thanks for reiterating what I already knew, though.
As mentioned earlier (perhaps you've only skimmed through this thread and did not see those posts), the relationship I was referring to was that in both cases, human error as well as technical shortcomings were involved.
Human Error: For Chernobyl it was people pushing the wrong buttons at the wrong time. For Fukushima it was people neglecting safety regulations and their own projections.
Technical Shortcomings: You've already listed those for Chernobyl. For Fukushima, see ShumaGorath's first post on this page.
VermGho5t wrote:GE Hitachi Nuclear released a statement as to the reliability of the design, and how heavily used these 'workhorse' reactors are. Granted it is a press release from the company refuting claims. You can bet your paycheck this reactor was not of the same generation as Chernobyl.
I don't see how a valid defense could be made in any case. Either the company admits the reactor was unsafe, hence confirming they were greedy feths who disregarded safety regulations because they only cared for money, or the company admits that the reactor was regarded as safe as per the enforced standards, hence confirming once more that such statements about safety from energy companies and governments are a load of crap.
Of course, today we already know that both the company and the governmental organisation that was supposed to police the reactors were engaged in neglecting their duties due to nothing other than monetary concerns.
sebster wrote:I cannot understand how people can be so hyper-sensitive to the potential of negative consequences from nuclear energy, and at the same time almost completely indifferent the real and very immediate negative consequences of generating energy from coal.
It's because immediate negative consequences from coal are (one should assume) so easily detected and acted upon, and are focused on a much smaller scale. Aftereffects of incidents caused by nuclear power, however, often take a much greater amount of time to even be detected - and can be felt by generations to come. How many decades did it take for anyone to notice that a US town in the vicinity of a uranium mine had a 30% (!) cancer rate amongst its entire population, for example?
Also, since when does opposing nuclear power equal supporting coal power? There are far safer and cheaper alternatives available. Suggesting I'm "almost completely indifferent" against the consequences of coal is a low blow, when this is no longer even worthy of being discussed. Nuclear is where the debate is at, this is where people cannot agree on whether it's good or bad.
Surtur wrote:
Spoiler:
Like most people here, you seem to believe that there is such a thing as a "safe" amount of radiation.
How much is a "maximum yearly dosage" worth, anyways, when governments raise them as soon as the people are subjected to a higher amount? Seems pretty arbitrary.
But yes, the dosage received whilst spending time on the grounds of the Chernobyl plant does vary wildly. Ironically, the ground surface contamination is "relatively" low, but high amounts persist in stuff like fir needles or animal fur. I've seen a travel report once, and visitors were warned to not in any case touch one of the stray animals still to be found in the area, and to stay away from the trees. Needless to say, the immediate surroundings of the sarcophagus are a no-go zone, too.
Orlanth wrote:The actual volumes of high toxicity waste is actually rather small by volume. Got a facility capable of storing some, and it is likely able to store a whole lot more.
Duh. Any facility "can" store high toxicity waste, even your garage. The tricky thing is safety - preventing the stuff from leaking out and contaminating the environment. Evidently you haven't read much about this, but that could be a result of it simply not being as much of a big topic in the US as it was in Germany after people/the media found out what happened in Asse II.
Orlanth wrote:The worst waste can normally by recycled and reused providing extra power and absorbing a large portion of the waste. This function is lost if the hippies and hysteria struck envirolobbyists get their way. Here let the boffins explain it to you:
But hey, maybe it's just a lie from the "hippies and hysteria struck envirolobbyists"! After all, the source you quoted might be a completely objective and unbiased and ... oh, wait.
You're aware that this is a lobby website that churns out propaganda like there being no increased risk of cancer from exposure to radiation of up to 260 mSv? Even the rather conservative statements of the UN would label this as a blatant lie.
I wonder what you'd say if I would have quoted a Greenpeace website, though.
Go on believing I don't understand. With the material you are basing your opinion on, I don't think there is much of a point in discussing this further.
PS: I think the website you quoted would be funnier if they'd change their counter to something like "this uninsured industry has worked X days without causing a major catastrophe that cost the taxpayer billions of dollars".
Frazzled wrote:Well if it works, if it isn't horrendously expensive, and if the fuel is common, then it could be. If so, I'm for an Apollo style program converting the US economy to a hydrogen/fusion economy within 5 years.
The fuel is Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe. You can't get any more common than that
Frazzled wrote:Well if it works, if it isn't horrendously expensive, and if the fuel is common, then it could be. If so, I'm for an Apollo style program converting the US economy to a hydrogen/fusion economy within 5 years.
The fuel is Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe. You can't get any more common than that
Most fusion reactor designs use rare materials since hydrogen doesn't fuse on it's own. It needs a catalyst to begin the process. We have no method of controlling a sustained fusion reaction at the moment, so the more realistic designs generally just fuse fuel pellets and capture the energy released, using a portion of it to fuse the next pellet.
).
