Disasters in Japan

Wouldnt building it on high ground protect from tsunami (as opposed to practically on the beach). Ok you'd have to move stuff up the hill from the ships but worth the hassle.
Click to expand...
I believe that such nuclear power stations need access to water.

Of course, it should never have been built.
 
Latrade - I'm not going to go into the pros and cons of nuclear power in this thread. I didn't realise about the graphite core being flammable and causing such problems in Chernobyl - so that's a bonus here.

Let's just see what happens and hope (pray if you're a believer) that they get some kind of break.
 

I don't expect you to and I don't mean to either. We have a huge disaster (last I heard over a 1000 bodies have washed up on the shore), total deaths likely to be in the 10s of thousands and the media is fixated with one plant that is in trouble but in all likelihood is only now likely to harm those working there. No mentionof the 4 other plants affected by the quake that are under control and where safety design worked, no mentionof the sister plant that managed to get all four reactors under control today, no mention of the other industries that are currently causing huge environmental damage and illness.

Why should they bother with that and the grim realities of a natural disaster when there's panic to cause?
 
I understand what you're saying. I believe the reason is two fold:
- The outcome could effect everyone else in the world, so people are scared.
- The unknown. Radiation is misunderstood and also feared by many people. (Which is easy for the media to work on)

I can't think of any other accident that has the potential to effect the globe. That's how it's different. Bhopal, for example, was a huge accident, but it had limited scope.
 
Latrade, two things I cant seem to hear in the media are:

1) The type of radiation and its half life currently being emitted?
2) The length of time it will stay in the environment?

Initially on Friday evening I heard from some expert on the bbc that the radiation was nitrogen 16 and had a half life of 5 seconds. ie. pretty harmless in a pretty short period of time.

However now we hear of new radiation leaking, but it is not clear if this is a different type, ie more harmful? or how long it will stay in the environment for? Can the core emit differing types of radiation, some of which are more dangerous than others, or is radiation of only one type?

The media reporting is pretty poor, which may or may not be a reflection of the information being fed from the Japanese government.

I get the sense that the newspapers and news channels are loving the attention to pull in the viewers or newspaper buyers over the reporting of real factual information.

Likewise the time for discussing the rights or wrongs of nuclear is once the situation is resolved (hope so much this this will be soon). Far too many experts of either side of the argument trying to spin their view. Likewise a media trying to spin the story as much as they can.

Where can you get the real facts from???
 
ringledman said:
Latrade, two things I cant seem to hear in the media are:

1) The type of radiation and its half life currently being emitted?
2) The length of time it will stay in the environment?


Where can you get the real facts from???
Click to expand...

I don't blame the media for not getting into too much detail on the isotopes. But essentially the steam venting that has to take place would release relatively short lived isotopes. That means that even though they may travel some distance, because they decay quite quickly, the immediate danger from exposure to radiation is in the surrounding area of the plant. By the time the particles reach outside the exclusion zone, the amount of radiation drops.

We also see that the peaks in radiation levels are relativley short lived. Again, the media doesn't really clarify this, it will report the high levels (harmful levels) in the immediate area of the plant and then also state an increase in detecting radiation in Tokyo or elsewhere. The difference is the levels in Tokyo, while increasing aren't at a concerning level.

The isotopes and their half life vary, the Nitrogen-16 isotope is very short lived. I was taught at college that by the time you've typed R-A-D-I-O-A-C-T-I-V-E-D-E-C-A-Y it's gone. So that's not a huge concern,
but tritium, iodine-133, cesium-137 and strontium-90, among others, all have much longer half-lives and health risks. Even so the significance of the health risks varies as some don't survive as long in the body as others to do much harm. Iodine is the biggest concern at elevated levels as it collects in the thyroid, the quicker stuff gets out the body the better.

The only realy picture we can get is from monitoring the isotopes. It's likely that the containment vessel in #2 plant has been breached, but we can't be 100% sure as people can't get in to check. We know something is occuring as we know what isotopes there should be from the steam release, but they're also getting isotopes that would indicate exposure of the fuel rods.

Best case scenario with that at this point is that #2 has been breached, worst case scenario (and given the difficulty in getting information could be a reality) is that it's related to the fire at #4 plant and the spent fuel rods.

Sources of good information are diffuclt about the best is the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Unfortunately their website is down, but they tend to only put up a daily press release there. However, their facebook page is updated very frequently and is the best source I've come across.

As the website is down I can't link to it, so you'll have to do the old google.
 
I'm getting seriously worried about what's happening in that nuclear power plant at the moment. Apparently there are 600 rods of spent fuel in tanks at the top of the reactors. (WTF were they thinking doing this). These aren't in any containment. Mayak had a huge disaster with a nuclear waste tank in the '50s.

On top of these we have the potential meltdowns.
 
You are right to be concerned with unforeseen circumstances. For example, continued radiation leaks could give rise to radioactive spiders, with a consequential risk of Japanese Spidermen or possibly, if there were an explosion, Japanese Incredible Hulks. A plague of Godzillas can’t be ruled out either.
 

I was more concerned about a local increase in cancers, especially thyroid cancer, birth defects, still births, contaminated land, and a possibility of radioactive rain on Tokyo.
Global impact is a plume of radioactive particles being released into both the ocean and atmosphere. There's also the financial impact as well as environmental.

I don't find any of this remotely humorous. Godzilla - how original
 
Does anyone have any ideas why Fukushima no longer seems to be covered by the mainstream media?
The BP oil leak got loads of media attention for weeks.

At the moment, thousands of tonnes of radioactive water is being deliberately dumped in the Pacific to make room for more highly radioactive water in the storage tanks.
This water seems to be leaking into the sea as well

India has banned all food imports from Japan.

School playgrounds in Japan are being monitored for radiation.

These updates don't sound too promising:
http://www.fairewinds.com/updates

Yet, we hear nothing?
 

Because the mainstream press like to big up a story out of all proportions and then dump it once people get bored of hearing about it until the next story can be made.

Churn and burn, get people watching your channel or buying your paper.

The UK government were talling Brits to leave as the 3-4 mSv level in Tokyo was just too high. They forget to tell the residents of Cornwall who are exposed to similar natural levels on a daily basis from the granite in the rock. Likewise getting in a plane exposes you to radiation.

The scaremongering and lack of knowledge over nuclear is the problem. Of course it is dangerous to those in the vicinity but you need seriously large doses. The water will wash and spread the radiation over such a level that the effects will be small.

Radiation at low levels is a natural phenomenom.
 
Before this happened, the pro-nuclear power crowd were telling us that meltdowns could never happen again. Power stations were now safe, had better technology etc, etc... Now that this has happened, we seem to be hearing that radiation isn't that bad afterall! WTF?

Yes, I'm aware of background radiation. I'm also aware of restrictions placed on livestock in Scotland and Wales after Chernobyl.

This is a major incident. The pro-nuclear luddites seem to want to stop renewable progress. Is this why we're getting a news blackout? We need to develop new technology, and stop wasting time on unsafe, uneconomic nuclear power.

We have to end our dependence on oil, coal and uranium ore.
 
umop3p!sdn said:
We have to end our dependence on oil, coal and uranium ore.
Click to expand...

Good luck!


I'm not saying nuclear isnt dangerous, of course it is. And likewise I agree with going renewable.

However the tree hugers out there need to realise that there is no quick fix to non reliance on oil, coal and nuclear.

Unless you want everyone to go back to tending one's own 1/2 acre of land and never leaving ones village, then these three energy sources are here to stay in the modern world.

Even getting to 25% renewable is a huge task.

Likewise it takes a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami to cause local damage (albeit substancial) to a 40 year old nuclear plant. I think that says something about nuclear power.

This sort of incident will never happen in Europe so it is a bad argument to say look at this incident, stop all european nuclear plants.

What meaningful alternative is there for all our power needs? None.
 
From the opening sentence of that report:
As the situation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant slowly winds down, the salient facts remain the same as they have been throughout: nobody has suffered or will suffer any radiological health consequences.
Click to expand...
It's accepted fact that the reactors will take months to cool down. We are far from 'slowly winding down'. We wont know the health consequences of this disaster for many years. Radioactive contamination (unless in extreme amounts) doesn't work like that. It reminds me of the cigarette companies.

Even getting to 25% renewable is a huge task.
Click to expand...
Yes, 100% renewable is a huge task. We have to start somewhere though, and we can't keep diverting billions into a failed nuclear industry, or spending billions on wars for oil.

A huge task, but not insurmountable.
This tells me that we shouldn't be using nuclear power. We can't predict the next act of God. We can't predict the next case of human error.

To say that this sort of incident will never happen in Europe shows terrible risk analysis. Isn't it more common to say things like '1000 year event' etc... Although we seem to be having a major accident every twenty or so years at the moment. The more NPPs, the more likely an accident.

A meaningful alternative will be renewables.
 
http://www.withouthotair.com
To remove Oil from the supply line for the UK (transport included), you'd have to cover every inch of land in PV cells at better-than-current-maximum efficiencies, and include wind / wave / hydro generation ... and you still don't come close !

Unfortunately, renewables just dont cut it...
 

They will have to cut it, we don't have any other choice. Everything else gets depleted (it isn't renewable)

There will have to be a a two-pronged approach of reducing energy consumption and accelerating research into renewables. We can use all that money wasted on wars and nuclear power to do this.

People use far too much energy at the moment. How did we survive before the industrial revolution?
 

Yes a major incident, but nowhere near the scale the media tried to suggest it could get to. That's why they're quiet because it didn't live up to their doomsday expectations.

"Pro-nuclear luddites"? Erm i would think that the advances in nuclear technology is far from being a luddite. And there's the problem, the anti-nuclear voice is prohibiting or at least scaring off governments from investing in research to safer nuclear generation. There is some amazing progress being made in the labs and on a bigger scale.

Pro-nuclear luddites would also include a fair portion of the world's scientists, the same scientists who would also be signed up for preventing global warming. So there is no right wing conspiracy here, just a huge dose of reality and reasoning and all this debate is doing is taking away from the Japan tragedy.

Even if there are long term health problems related to this. It will only be limited to a very local area. That's not spin or pro-nuclear agenda (well some atomic spin is involved) that's just basic physics. At worst it may cause up to 1000 premature deaths. That's a lot, but on a scale of what has been lost through the quakes and tsunamis?

Here's the simple way it is. We need to end dependancy on oil and as you say urnanium. We can't just shut down the power stations. We can't just rely on renewables. There is no such thing as free energy, either in the law of physics sense nor in the sense of affecting man or the environment. Dams burst, people are killed in the construction of dams. Windmills kill more people in the US than have ever been killed by radiation in the US (including testing of the atomic bomb). Bio-fuels take food away from starving people and agriculture kills more workers than other industries in this country, agriculture has a huge environmental impact with surface water pollution.

Per KW produced and number of people affected there is no safer form of energy generation at the moment. That's just how it is.

So we take one disaster that occurred as a result of an unprecidented natural event. A natural event of a scale limited to a select few known regions of the world. We take that and end any research or development of energy production that may provide answers to a reliance on oil?

If people want to reduce oil consumption, we've a limited choice. Reliable, efficient renewable energy that gives consistent constinuous production of energy is possibly 20 years away. We need to keep up with the R&D in that area. But we need an interim, we need something to fill the gap in the meantime and we have it.
 

There is a two-pronged approach. Most newer technology is infinitely more energy efficient, but that's outweighed by other nations developing and growing, but it is happening.

There is huge research in renewables, but there also needs to be research into nuclear. You may not like it, but the energy demands of the world are just too great. There isn't enough land or coastline for renewable production. We need a big hitter for energy production and the only current viable alternative (until we master fusion) is fission.

And what happened before the industrial revolution? Simple: most people were serfs to a Lord, completed backbreaking work from sunrise to sunset, hardly had enough food to feed a family, lost 1 in 2 children to infant mortality, suffered high rates of death in childbirth and lived to a ripe old age of 35 at best, never saw the world from outside their small town, were never educated, never able to read or given the opportunity to do anything but be a serf as your father was, as his father was and so on.

Ah the good old days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register