FUKUSHIMA earthquake and tsunami thread and aftermath

[Bloo Loo]

Most people cant see they get played one way or another beit buying a property, adhering to a religion, giving to charity or listening to Alex Jones.

Its very educational watching the justifications for XYZ though.

AlexJones is entertaining...but he is very wrong on some issues, and its glaryingly obvious when he says some things about the UK...

Not wrong on other things though.

recently was the Youngevity products he pushed since his stomach bug....mmm I thought, if its that good maybe I could get involved...turns out its a MLM scam...Maybe Jones fell for it, but his famed research certainly let him down on this one.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

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.

It sounds like you expect the general public to be able to properly assess risk.

Good luck with that.

[newbie]

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

If the nuclear power generators are subjected to 'principle' based regulation of this 'banking' type (if they haven't been already), we're doomed. The key problem with principle based regulation is that the regulators and adjudicators don't have the balls to enforce principles. That assumes the principles are coherent and understandable in the first place, and not some sort of ill-drafted conflicting policy objectives. The whole notion is inherently flawed. In a pluralistic society, the players need bright line rules.

[Bloo Loo]

At the same time why is trust placed in one set of experts ie coal or oil experts and not the nuke experts?

Selection bias perhaps? Or is it just that some things go beyong the comprehension of some people and so fear (an emotion) takes over from logic?

noah built the Ark...Professionals built the Titanic

[Hyperduck Quack Quack]

Nuclear power was part of the brave new world in the 1950's. Harnessing the power of the 'atom' for peaceful purposes, with the promise of cheap electricity for ever.

But now we're heading for being about half way through the nuclear age, with the world's known reserves of uranium predicted to last 80 years at current usage rate. We've had three major nuclear disasters in 60 years. The overall costs of nuclear power are vastly more than anticipated when decommissioning and waste disposal are included.

The next challenge is to show that the world can exist without nuclear power. It's a big challenge, especially for France, but we'll have to exist without it one day when all the exploitable uranium has gone, so why not begin the process now?

Edited March 15, 2011 by Hyperduck Quack Quack

[EUBanana]

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.

Wait to see how many people actually suffer health problems as a result. Or die.

Bear in mind the coal industry kills thousands every year.

[Injin]

At the same time why is trust placed in one set of experts ie coal or oil experts and not the nuke experts?

Selection bias perhaps? Or is it just that some things go beyong the comprehension of some people and so fear (an emotion) takes over from logic?

You don't need to be an expert to understand coal explodes, that coal dust makes you wheeze - the cause an effect is easy to follow.

That is, the basics are easy to grasp and so the degree to which you are trusting professor Frink is less. With nuclear the basics are pretty outlandish and so the level of trust that needs to be placed is a lot higher.

Of course this might be false in and of itself, the feeling of understanding coal dangers might be higher than the actual experiential data people have justifies, but the logic of that is also pretty easy to follow. After all even now most people have made a coal fire or at least seen one, not many have a nuclear powered central heating system.

[sarahleyburn]

You don't need to be an expert to understand coal explodes, that coal dust makes you wheeze - the cause an effect is easy to follow.

That is, the basics are easy to grasp and so the degree to which you are trusting professor Frink is less. With nuclear the basics are pretty outlandish and so the level of trust that needs to be placed is a lot higher.

General lack of understanding about nuclear power + long history of obfuscation / deceit by nuclear industry = scepticism (healthy, IMO).

That said, the better informed I become about nuclear power, the less I trust it.

[oktup]

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.

Hopefully I'm missing something here. But if a reactor gives off 400 milliSieverts per hour for 12 hours, that's 4800 milliSieverts as (pretty much) a single dose, is it not? And 24 hours of it would be going one further up the above scale?

[leicestersq]

Nuclear power was part of the brave new world in the 1950's. Harnessing the power of the 'atom' for peaceful purposes, with the promise of cheap electricity for ever.

But now we're heading for being about half way through the nuclear age, with the world's known reserves of uranium predicted to last 80 years at current usage rate. We've had three major nuclear disasters in 60 years. The overall costs of nuclear power are vastly more than anticipated when decommissioning and waste disposal are included.

The next challenge is to show that the world can exist without nuclear power. It's a big challenge, especially for France, but we'll have to exist without it one day when all the exploitable uranium has gone, so why not begin the process now?

What do you think of thorium reactors? They seem to have a lot of advantages.

I cant see why the UK doesnt at least build an experimental thorium plant.

[Injin]

So you discount its pollution then when burnt?

No, but I understand it and so does everyone else.

Just becuase something is easily accessible doesnt make it any safer. Maybe somethings are by design only accessible to higher intelligence.

That was my whole point. The thing is, in both cases you are asking people to take a risk - and they are going to choose the one they understand every time.

[billybong]

According to the news the exclusion zone has been increased to 18 miles.

[Riedquat]

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.

You should learn from the experts but you shouldn't trust them. For any decision your goal should be to try to understand enough to be able to make your own informed decisions. I will never accept anyone saying "I know what I'm talking about so just go with what I say," and neither should anyone else. The only exception is when, despite all attempts at explanation, I still can't get my head around something, at which point I've got no choice other than to trust an expert who seems to know what they're talking about.

Edit to add (not particularly relevent to this post) that even after all of this I wouldn't be too bothered if a nuclear power station was built down the road from where I live, as long as I couldn't actually see it.

Edited March 15, 2011 by Riedquat

[copydude]

Wait to see how many people actually suffer health problems as a result. Or die.

Bear in mind the coal industry kills thousands every year.

Might interest you to know that the Chernobyl Committee is still active in Russia and Belarus, trying to help win compensation or care for victims. The effects are long-term, wide-ranging and not always predictable. The numbers of people affected by Chernobyl were also in the tens of thousands and after-effects are still ongoing, 25 years later. (Consider birth defects and 'in case' abortions - the resulting percentage of 'in case' abortions in Belarus is just staggering.)

If I were living in Japan, I would see nothing wrong in taking a worst-scenario view (you may call it TFH if you will) and taking every possible precaution to protect my health. This would have saved countless lives and immeasurable suffering in Ukraine and Belarus.

People argue about comparisons with Chernobyl, but there are certainly many similarities. The worst thing about Chernobyl was that the authorities were in denial about the seriousness of the problem for 48 hours. This also seems to be the case at Fukushima.

[Injin]

You should learn from the experts but you shouldn't trust them. For any decision your goal should be to try to understand enough to be able to make your own informed decisions. I will never accept anyone saying "I know what I'm talking about so just go with what I say," and neither should anyone else. The only exception is when, despite all attempts at explanation, I still can't get my head around something, at which point I've got no choice other than to trust an expert who seems to know what they're talking about.

My point is I don't need an expert to understand the coal issue and neither do most other adults who are likely to look at it, the cause and effect of coal are exactly the same sorts of things i've been aware of since I was young - dirt, choked lungs, accidents, explosions. They go fractal of course and operate over millions of us and larger areas but the basic principles are the same.

The cause and effect of nuclear radiation are non experiential. I have no map for them, other than what I am given by an expert and, like everyone else in this life I have been shafted deliberately by experts in the past for their own personal gain who have used my ignorance against me. Hell, it's more or less the entirety of the definition of expert in some fields.*

*economists and lawyers, I am looking at you.

[copydude]

According to the news the exclusion zone has been increased to 18 miles.

The designated 'Dead Zone' at Chernobyl was about 30k, if I recall. But unfortunately, airborne radiation doesn't travel in any neat fashion. The hotspots landed hundreds of kilometres away. Radiation was detected in rainfall in Scotland and the Swedes abandoned their annual crayfish feast.

[stormymonday_2011]

Wait to see how many people actually suffer health problems as a result. Or die.

Bear in mind the coal industry kills thousands every year.

Are you claiming uranium mining is completely safe and produces no toxic by products or enviromental degradation ?

Edited March 15, 2011 by stormymonday_2011

[SaintJay]

The Reuters feed is quite good. Better than BBC and SKY - which appear to be quite selective (good - yes, bad - no) on what they publish.

http://live.reuters.com/Event/Japan_earthquake2

[mfp123]

reactor 4 seems to be the big concern again now. they are unable to pour water into the storage pool.

[Guest_FaFa!_*]

You can't expect Guardian writers to read the Guardian as well.

(On the substance of your point, yes, what they have written implies exactly what you say - but I've no idea about radiation sickness and if they copied it out correctly.)

Guardian is now saying:

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

Confusing reports regarding the level of radiation at Fukushima – earlier we heard Kyodo news report that levels were too high for staff to stay in control rooms, now the International Atomic Energy Agency says that the level of radiation "has been decreasing" at the site.

IAEA updated its Facebook status earlier:

The Japanese authorities have informed the IAEA that the following radiation dose rates have been observed on site at the main gate of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

At 00:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 11.9 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed. Six hours later, at 06:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 0.6 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed.

These observations indicate that the level of radioactivity has been decreasing at the site.

As reported earlier, a 400 millisieverts (mSv) per hour radiation dose observed at Fukushima Daiichi occurred between units 3 and 4. This is a high dose-level value, but it is a local value at a single location and at a certain point in time. The IAEA continues to confirm the evolution and value of this dose rate. It should be noted that because of this detected value, non-indispensible staff was evacuated from the plant, in line with the Emergency Response Plan, and that the population around the plant is already evacuated.

IAEA said 150 people from around the Daiichi site had received monitoring for radiation levels, and "measures to decontaminate 23 of them have been taken".

The true picture remains confused - it is all very concerning

[Riedquat]

Are you claiming uranium mining is completely safe and produces no toxic by products or enviromental degradation ?

Please avoid phrases like "completely safe". Nothing is. All you can do is compare the risks of one thing against another. So I would hope no-one would claim that uranium mining and processing is completely trouble-free. The question is "Does it cause far fewer deaths and injuries and pollution than coal mining and processing?" To make it even more meaningful you should really add something along the lines of "per kWh of electricity generated from it."

[mfp123]

now; we know that the reactors at 1 and 3 have a containment vessel that will (hopefully) keep a meltdown in place.

but in reactor 4 which is just a giant cooling pool, this contains the spent fuel rods. these wont melt as far as im aware but they can catch fire if they are exposed to air, and release radioactive material into the atmosphere.

there have been reports that there are holes in the reactor 4 building that is exposing the spent fuel rods to the outer air, so im wondering if this is a weak link in the nuclear plant design???

because it sounds like the storage area for the spent fuel doesnt have the same safety mechanisms as the reactor, and if the spent fuels rods burn they will release radiation into the air anyway, irrespective of whether the actual nuclear reactors at 1 and 3 meltdown or not.

Edited March 15, 2011 by mfp123

[SaintJay]

Guardian is now saying:

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

The true picture remains confused - it is all very concerning

Six hours later, at 06:00 UTC on 15 March a dose rate of 0.6 millisieverts (mSv) per hour was observed.

This measurement was taken 10 minutes before the 3rd explosion this morning.

I have not seen a later update.

[billybong]

According to the news "there are 4 reactors at Fukushima and there have been explosions in 3 of them and a fire in a 4th."

Apparently there are 6 reactors at the site affected so there seems to be a bit of numerical inaccuracy creeping into the news reports.

Edited March 15, 2011 by billybong

[fluffy666]

Are you claiming uranium mining is completely safe and produces no toxic by products or enviromental degradation ?

They keyword is less.

Although with the various 4th generation designs (IFR, breeders, thorium reactors), mining could be brought to a halt, more or less. As would the current concept of waste disposal. But apparently we are not allowed to use any technology that the average man on the street finds scary, so we'll have to stick with killing people by burning stuff.