FUKUSHIMA earthquake and tsunami thread and aftermath

[Conrad]

Hinkley Point is the one to watch. The prevailing winds in Britain are West / South West. In the unlikely event of that suffering a catastrophe the radiation would probably head for London and the Midlands.

Also don't the sneaky pierre French have most of their Nuclear Power stations on their Northern coast? We are doommmed I tell ya!

[Injin]

Total fail!

Nah, really man.

This stuff will only effect you very tangentially - the biggest worry you have is the economic impact, not the nuclear. You are over concerned because of fear centres in your brain misfiring - and juggling will help them repair.

Listening to Alex Jones will not, he just cashes in on irrational fear.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

Total fail!

Um, no, I have friends in Tokyo. But never mind, I should disregard what I have heard from them in favour of a goldbug site run by a man who calls himself Tyler Durden (how cool and rebellious he sounds).

Here's some more facts, courtesy of the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/15/japan-nuclear-crisis-tsunami-live

11.32am: Earlier we heard that 400 milliSieverts of radiation an hour had been recorded at Fukushima Daiichi's unit 3 reactor this morning. The Guardian's science correspondent Ian Sample has provided some context to the units being used to describe radiation levels.

"The levels of radiation being released by the nuclear power station are given in Sieverts. A microSievert is a one millionth or a Sievert," Ian writes. "A milliSievert is one thousandth of a Sievert."

Ian offers these comparisons:

• 2 milliSieverts/year: The level of natural background radiation we are all exposed to.

• 9 milliSieverts/year: The typical dose received by an airline crew flying the New York to Tokyo polar route. Flying at altitude increases radiation exposure to cosmic rays.

• 100 milliSieverts/year: The lowest level at which an increase in cancer is evident.

• 1,000 milliSieverts accumulative: Estimated to cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people.

• 1,000 milliSieverts single dose: Temporary radiation sickness, including nausea, lower white blood cell count. Not fatal.

• 5,000 milliSieverts single dose: Fatal within a month to half those who receive it.

• 10,000 milliSieverts single dose: Fatal within weeks.

[cassiedog]

It makes sense, even if it's just to reassure the public in Germany.

Just incase they have a quake and Tsunami!! does She know that she's a greater chance of winning the lottery!

These sorts of knee jerk reactions are what is taking our society backwards!!!

[Injin]

Just incase they have a quake and Tsunami!! does She know that she's a greater chance of winning the lottery!

These sorts of knee jerk reactions are what is taking our society backwards!!!

I think it's a very smart move. They can take the power stations offline, wait until people calm the ****** down, have the debate and then fire them back up.

It shows that fears (whether rational or not) are being taken seriously.

[Sour Mash]

Yes, it did survive the earthquake. The earthquake caused no significant problems. They all came from the backup systems being knocked out by the tsunami.

So bloody what? Why are you bothered about what some random "official" tells people? I'm more interested in the actual realities on the ground. People seem to get upset if they're not told that something is completely safe, so we often get told that because there would be an uproar as soon as someone admitted the rather obvious and simple truth - nothing is completely safe. It's not even worth paying attention to people who can't grasp that basic fact. Base your decisions about knowledge of the technology please, not what someone who doesn't understand it has said to reassure other people who don't understand it.

There is yet no evidence whatsoever that this is anything else. It might yet turn into something much more serious, but so far it IS of minor significance compared to the rest of the destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami. There's probably going to be a nuclear power station trashed that is going to be a nightmare to clear up. However, where's the reason to believe, at present, that it's going to have any long-term impact beyond that, which is the main thing? Unless you get core material flung everywhere a la Chernobyl I fail to see why people are so keen to blow this up as a much bigger catastrophe than all the rest of the damage.

How so? Acknowledging the fact that there's a very slim chance of something very serious? Has anyone who looks like they know what they're talking about ever said otherwise? Or is it the realisation that most of the pro-nuclear people are actually rather more pragmatic than the paranoid "We're all doomed because someone has mentioned the word 'risk'" brigade? If the realisation that it might just kill you but is incredibly unlikely to, and less so than many things people don't worry about, is losing the argument then it must have been lost a long time ago on just about every development since the discovery of fire.

Listen to yourself - you sound like a robot with Aspergers syndrome.

Keep ranting that the worsening situation really isn't a problem all you like - it'll just alientate the general public even more. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot ...

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

On Sky website they're now saying there's a serious radiation threat and the situation is deteriorating.

Also the EU is considering stress testing all nuclear power stations in member states as a precaution.

(Remember, the earthquake / tsunami might have precipitated the chain of events in Fukushima but the immediate cause of the nuclear emergency was a system failure - e.g. power and backup failure, which could also be caused by other events in other places.)

Edited March 15, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[fluffy666]

Hinkley Point and Oldbury are the ones to watch. The prevailing winds in Britain are West / South West. In the unlikely event of tither of those suffering a catastrophe the radiation would probably head for London and the Midlands.

In the case of Hinkley point, it'd go over my house first.

[_w_]

On Sky website they're now saying there's a serious radiation threat and the situation is deteriorating.

Also the EU is considering stress testing all nuclear power stations in member states as a precaution.

(Remember, the earthquake / tsunami might have precipitated the chain of events in Fukushima but the immediate cause of the nuclear emergency was a system failure - e.g. power and backup failure, which could also be caused by other events in other places.)

I'm not sure mentioning EU stress tests is going to increase my confidence level. Perhaps the opposite.

[Riedquat]

A major accident at a nuclear power station could lead to tens of thousands of early deaths, birth defects, hundreds of square miles that become uninhabitable and thousands of square miles where agricultural products would be contaminated. I'm not saying thus will happen at Fukushima but that's that's the worst case for a nuclear accident. For a coal fired power station the worst accident would be if part of the pressurised steam system exploded - the boiler or a turbine, which could lead to the destruction of the power station and the deaths of the people in it, but that's about all.

But you must take into account the probability of it happening too. If the probability of such an accident happening once in 10 billion years then it's simply nothing to worry about. If it's once in 100 years it's definitely something to worry about. Then you need to consider whether or not the consequences of using other sources of power, or doing without it, will be even worse. Big one-offs hit the headlines and are what people worry about, but the reality is that they shouldn't be considered any differently from slow non-newsworthy accumulated effects. Decisions simply must be made on such a rational basis. Only then does opinion enter the debate - which option is the lesser of two evils? Is it a good chance of very few ill effects with a small risk of some very bad ones, or a definite series of bad ones but with a lesser possible maximum?

Take some (totally invented from thin air) numbers:

Nuclear generation - mean 50 deaths per 100 years, 0.000001% chance of 100000.

Avoiding nuclear generation - mean 10000 deaths per 100 years, 50% chance of as many as 11000.

Which is the better option? Whatever form of generation you chose you'll have to make a similar analysis. Anyone who baldly states "This is safe and that is not" is too clueless to be worth listening to.

[SarahBell]

I'm not sure mentioning EU stress tests is going to increase my confidence level. Perhaps the opposite.

They could do a quick flow chart:

Does the NR create it's own electricity to power it's cooling pumps?

Are the pumps in a tsunami area?

Is there enough diesel for the spare generators for more than half an hour?

[Left the UK 2009]

Absolutely no signs of panic in Tokyo at the moment, a friend is receiving a few birthday messages and Threads is currently the most popular apocalypse movie.

[_w_]

They could do a quick flow chart:

Does the NR create it's own electricity to power it's cooling pumps?

Are the pumps in a tsunami area?

Is there enough diesel for the spare generators for more than half an hour?

From experience I see EU style tests being more like:

- doing you think something bad that you would not be able to handle brilliantly could happen?

- since no such thing could exist can you confirm everything will be fine and we shouldn't worry about a thing?

- do you agree with us that no outside audit of your emergency procedures should be carried out since you know much better than we do how to handle these things?

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

One could be forgiven for thinking there are two parallel universes. Out there in the real world the news is of an unfolding nuclear catastrophe in Japan, with dangerous levels of radioactive material being carried in the wind from one of the reactors, and yet there in this little bubble of a thread on a forum on a website devoted to a house price crash that's never going to happen, some people are still arguing that nuclear power is safe and the probability of a major accident is minimal and nothing much has happened.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[newbie]

From experience I see EU style tests being more like:

- doing you think something bad that you would not be able to handle brilliantly could happen?

- since no such thing could exist can you confirm everything will be fine and we shouldn't worry about a thing?

- do you agree with us that no outside audit of your emergency procedures should be carried out since you know much better than we do how to handle these things?

Sounds like the tough questions the FSA was asking banks a few years ago!

[Scott Sando]

One could be forgiven for thinking there are two parallel universes. Out there in the real world the news is of an unfolding nuclear catastrophe in Japan, with dangerous levels of radioactive material being carried in the wind from one of the reactors, and yet there in this little bubble of a thread on a forum on a website devoted to a house price crash that's never going to happen, some people are still arguing that nuclear power is safe and the probability of a major accident is minimal and nothing much has happened.

+1 its called the Normalcy bias, this thread is going to make a great end of term paper for me.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Scott Sando

[trekking]

Hinkley Point and Oldbury are the ones to watch. The prevailing winds in Britain are West / South West. In the unlikely event of tither of those suffering a catastrophe the radiation would probably head for London and the Midlands.

This is really starting to sound like a chain reaction

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

I agree - I don't trust what I hear from various 'self appointed experts' on the internet. But equally, I don't trust the authorities either. Even the Japanese Prime Minister has been tearing his hair out about the lack of info he has been getting.

And there doesn't even have to be a cover-up. It could be that nobody really knows exactly what's happened because nobody can get close enough to the reactors to see what's left. If there's dangerous levels of radiation spewing out of one, as the news now says, it's not unreasonable to assume that the containment has been breached. Edited March 15, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[The Moderators]

The Moderators have tried to keep out of this thread to allow freedom of speech. However complaints are coming in about exaggerated posts and posters losing the run of themselves.

Please calm down and post information not wild conjecture or insults and ad hominem attacks.

This is a devastating occurrence for the people of Japan and will have long term effects on all our lives in different ways - don't cheapen it by posting tinfoilhat nonsense - you criticise the MSM for it's attitude please show a responsible attitude on HPC.

[Riedquat]

Listen to yourself - you sound like a robot with Aspergers syndrome.

Keep ranting that the worsening situation really isn't a problem all you like - it'll just alientate the general public even more. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot ...

Are you capable of arguing, or just insulting someone who doesn't agree with you? Or do you simply take comfort in any reason to panic, and get upset with people who don't until the brown stuff actually does hit the fan? It might be flying in that direction, but it's not hit yet so stop assuming that it will.

All I'm saying is that there isn't any evidence yet that there will be a long-term problem. Events might change to suggest that there will be. I'll get really worried if there's reports of, or a high chance of, core fuel material being flung around. Can you please explain what is wrong with that position? I simply don't crap myself whenever the word "radiation" is mentioned. Consider an ordinary fire. Is it going to burn the building down that it started in (very serious for that building), or spread throughout town (a very serious problem for everyone)? There have simply not been any reports that suggest that we're in the latter situation. How likely are we to end up in it?

What am I shooting myself in the foot about? It's not as if I'm in a position to influence nuclear energy policy, so I've no need to tiptoe around peoples' feelings by avoiding stating the facts and my views on them as I see them.

[Scott Sando]

The Moderators have tried to keep out of this thread to allow freedom of speech. However complaints are coming in about exaggerated posts and posters losing the run of themselves.

Please calm down and post information not wild conjecture or insults and ad hominem attacks.

This is a devastating occurrence for the people of Japan and will have long term effects on all our lives in different ways - don't cheapen it by posting tinfoilhat nonsense - you criticise the MSM for it's attitude please show a responsible attitude on HPC.

I think you should look through the post in context, and see where any attacks started. Actually this is my last post on this site, bye

[fluffy666]

One could be forgiven for thinking there are two parallel universes. Out there in the real world the news is of an unfolding nuclear catastrophe in Japan, with dangerous levels of radioactive material being carried in the wind from one of the reactors, and yet there in this little bubble of a thread on a forum on a website devoted to a house price crash that's never going to happen, some people are still arguing that nuclear power is safe and the probability of a major accident is minimal and nothing much has happened.

No.

People such as myself are saying that although nuclear power has risks - clearly in evidence right now - those risks are smaller than the risks posed by other forms of power generation. This will remain true even if all 4 reactors at that site blow up.

I really don't understand what argument you are making, because the concept of relative risk seems to pass you by.

[_w_]

Sounds like the tough questions the FSA was asking banks a few years ago!

I was thinking of the generic EU stress test template. It works for any industry.

[_w_]

+1 its called the Normalcy bias, this thread is going to make a great end of term paper for me.

We are prone to more than one bias.

[Injin]

No.

People such as myself are saying that although nuclear power has risks - clearly in evidence right now - those risks are smaller than the risks posed by other forms of power generation. This will remain true even if all 4 reactors at that site blow up.

I really don't understand what argument you are making, because the concept of relative risk seems to pass you by.

I think it's to do with understanding the risks of one and not the other and the fact that while the risks of nuclear might be* lower than coal, practically everyone understands the risks of coal but understanding the risks of nuclear requires trust in experts.

Trusting in experts carries it's own risks and these need to be added to the total.

*Might be higher, I have no clue about this stuff.