Water leaks from Onagawa nuclear plant

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

Quite amazing how all the arm chair experts forget the fact that there has been massive destruction due to the earthquake and tsunami.

That destruction, no matter how far and wide, will be dealt with in far less time and with far less money per acre than the Fukeshima power plant and its surrounding area.

Decades from now, when saplings that have yet to be planted in those tsunami-destroyed areas will have grown into mature trees, the surrounding area around Fukeshima will remain an uninhabited wasteland just as the area around Chernobyl is today.

Of course, you're going to duck that fact the same way you did with the spent fuel "problem," right?

 

[dcraig]

Quote from 1flyfisher:

That's pretty sick and twisted on your part to state that people who have a more realistic outlook on this disaster than you do would wish Fukushimka is worse than Chernobyl.

Who appointed you as the realist?

I'll tell you what is sick and twisted and that is spreading ill informed exaggerated bullshit. As a consequence, we see that people won't for example travel to Tokyo due to fear that has no rational basis. The radiation level in Tokyo is less than the natural background radiation level in Europe and in the US.

And this is a small microcosm of the problem which extends to multiple areas from unnecessary distress completely out of all proportion to actual risk due to very low level radiation exposure to all sorts of economic damage being done by ill informed fear impeding recovery from effects of the earthquake and tsunami which by any measure are orders of magnitude worse than anything from the Fukushima plant. As always, it will be those least able to afford these consequences who will bear the brunt of them.

Take the case of a person who hypothetically been exposed to 10 mSv excess dose of radiation. According the the LNT model, they will have 0.05% increased chance of contracting a fatal cancer in their lifetime. In the US, for males the lifetime risk of developing an invasive cancer is 44% and the risk of dying from this cause is 23.2%. Why should that tiny estimated increased risk of cancer cause a person to not get on with their life free from anxiety and depression? The only "realistic" course is to state loudly and clearly what the risks actually are. It is completely unethical to do otherwise regardless of ones opinion of nuclear power.

It should also be noted that the LNT dose-response model while adopted by nearly all regulatory agencies is conservative and there is a body of opinion that there is a threshold below which low level radiation exposure causes no harm. In other words the figures for cancer risk mentioned above are conservative and likely represent the upper limit.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from jprad:

The Robot Rule
Don't start a nuclear reactor unless you have robots to stop it from melting down.

The public health consequences rule: Do not start a coal fired power station until you can guarantee that it will not contribute to the 20,000 deaths from coal burning every year in the US and at least hundreds of thousands world wide.

The environmental consequences rule: Do not start a coal fired power station until it will not spew forth nearly 1kg of CO2 for every kWh produced.

The honest approach to risk rule: Learn to examine all the options and make an honest assessment of risk. Virtually nothing is risk free.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from jprad:

Decades from now, when saplings that have yet to be planted in those tsunami-destroyed areas will have grown into mature trees, the surrounding area around Fukeshima will remain an uninhabited wasteland just as the area around Chernobyl is today.

And you have based your assessment on detailed survey data? I thought not, because as far as I am aware there isn't any publicly available.

I have been keeping an eye on the reported radiation measurements almost since the start of the Fukushima incident and it has been clear for some time that longer term evacuations may be necessary from the area north west of the plant. As for other areas, it is quite unclear what the outcome is going to be. Because of the value of land in Japan, it may be economic to decontaminate areas by for example removing topsoil. All in all, the situation is very unclear at the moment, but uncertainty doesn't seem to be any impediment to some who insist on grand sweeping proclamations unencumbered any real knowledge of the situation.

Oh, and the area around Chernobyl is NOT a wasteland. Wildlife seems to be doing quite well and while harm to wildlife remains uncertain, it certainly is not of a scale that warrants the term "wasteland" - or anything like it.

 

[futuman]

Quote from jprad:


There is simply no other power source that can go from being a multibillion dollar asset to a multibillion liability in a matter of hours.

You could't say it clearer, so better be well hedged if you own shares of nuke companies.

 

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

I'll tell you what is sick and twisted and that is spreading ill informed exaggerated bullshit. As a consequence, we see that people won't for example travel to Tokyo due to fear that has no rational basis.

I agree. There are plenty of people who won't travel somewhere because they perceive it to be unsafe the same as people who won't eat genetically modified foods, steroids enhanced meat, or seafood from the Gulf of Mexico, etc.

And it's all because they no longer trust anything said by anyone from government or the affected industries because of all the exaggerated bullshit they've heard from them in the past.

 

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

The public health consequences rule: Do not start a coal fired power station until you can guarantee that it will not contribute to the 20,000 deaths from coal burning every year in the US and at least hundreds of thousands world wide.

That number is theoretical and unsubstantiated. One number that is factual is the number of highway deaths per year in the U.S. -- over 33,000.

Yet, we still drive cars...

The environmental consequences rule: Do not start a coal fired power station until it will not spew forth nearly 1kg of CO2 for every kWh produced.

Well, according to the Dutch, their electricity generation produces 443g of CO2 and 0.000287 grams of radioactive waste per kWh.

http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/ba...63?PHPSESSID=8b2c9d05e9681f19726df31f72a3fad9

The Dutch, in 2008, produced 108.2 billion kWh of electricity and nuclear power was responsible for 10% of that total.

http://www.indexmundi.com/netherlands/electricity_production.html

Now, how about you do the math on how many kilos that 10% per year produces of radioactive waste that will remain harmful for 10,000 years.

(In case you can't, it's ~1,550kg/yr)

Virtually nothing is risk free.

And some risks are unacceptable at any price.

 

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

And you have based your assessment on detailed survey data? I thought not, because as far as I am aware there isn't any publicly available.

Interesting. You come out and jump over an admittedly subjective argument that can't be proven, either way.

Yet, you won't touch the spent fuel issue.

Can't say as I blame you, we all know, including you, that it's harmful...

 

[jprad]

Quote from futuman:

You could't say it clearer, so better be well hedged if you own shares of nuke companies.

Siemens Rethinks Nuclear Ambitions

April 15, 2011

German engineering giant Siemens AG is considering whether to abandon its goal of becoming a major player in the atomic-power industry, according to people familiar with the matter, as Japan's nuclear crisis continues to unfold.

..."Fukushima has to be an occasion for taking stock [of nuclear energy]," Siemens finance chief Joe Kaeser told Germany's Der Tagesspiegel newspaper in an interview this week.

"The world has to do some soul-searching," he added, but declined to elaborate on Siemens' own nuclear aims.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704547804576260953845777640.html

 

[futuman]

Nuclear fuel has melted in three reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and fallen to the lower sections of their container vessels, raising the specter of overheated material compromising a container and causing a massive radiation release, the Atomic Energy Society of Japan said in a report released on Friday.

Nuclear Expert: Iodine-131 in No. 4 pool suggests that “spent fuel has started its own chain reaction”