The terrible natural disaster in Japan has been compounded by the dangers presented by radiation from the damaged nuclear power plant. As should come as no surprise, this has caused a world wide renewal of concern regarding nuclear power.
On one hand, the fear people have about nuclear power can be irrational and based on beliefs that are not entirely accurate. In part, these fears are grounded in atomic weapons. It is, after all, natural for people to associate the horrors of nuclear weapons with nuclear power plants, even though power plants do not work like nuclear bombs. In part, these fears are also grounded in fiction-radiation, mutation, and so on are put forth in science fiction and horror in ways that have branded them into the public mind. The fact that folks in the media tend to hype things and that the nuclear industry has done little to educate the public do not help matters.
While I do know a bit about nuclear power and radiation, I do have the same “gut fear” of radiation that most folks no doubt possess. As such, I am very sympathetic to people who are very scared of nuclear power and those who oppose it. However, I temper my fear with knowledge and hence I do consider nuclear power well worth considering. True, my ideal power source is nuclear fusion-but that is still the stuff of science fiction.
On the other hand, nuclear power plants can pose very real and very serious health and environmental risks. Accidents are always possible (though thankfully rare) and, of course, there is the concern that a natural disaster will (as happened in Japan) cripple or destroy a plant.
Because of these legitimate concerns, it is wise to be rather careful about nuclear power and the real risks that it presents. However, this assessment should be based on a rational consideration of the dangers and the benefits and should not be grounded in irrational or unfounded fears about nuclear power and radiation.
That said, it is obvious that we are in a phase in which politicians will be reacting to the events in Japan and people will be motivated by their fears. For example, people on the West coast of the US have been running to buy potassium iodide, despite the fact that there is (and almost certainly will not be) any radiation threat in the United States from Japan. As another example, some countries are shutting down reactors. While I am all for rational preparations and for due safety, we need to avoid being swept along by the events and fears of the moment.
Of course, it is almost certainly a waste of keystrokes to type that. After all, we tend to react rather than be proactive and are inevitably caught up in whatever is hitting the headlines this week. Then we generally forget until the next disaster, then we wonder why we did not do much (or anything) differently. But, I am sure we will learn our lesson this time.
Nuclear energy plants are, I think, a bad, dangerous, and very out-dated idea. The waste issue alone, which has NEVER been solved, should make it obvious to most anyone that nuclear power is a bad idea. Let alone the inherent danger of radiation leaks.
The waste issue is not technical; it is ENTIRELY political.
As some countries are doing, we could reprocess the used fuel to extract the real waste; the real waste is a tiny fraction of the used fuel, decays much more quickly, and needs to be sequestered for only a few hundred years instead of thousands of years. After the real waste is removed from the used fuel, the used fuel can be mixed with new fuel and put back into a reactor.
Also, as I stated in another post, it would be better to use thorium instead of uranium. In that post, I included two links to provide information on liquid fluoride thorium reactors.
No acceptable alternative has been proposed for nuclear power. Solar and wind power are intermittent sources of power and, without storage, cannot be used to provide for the energy requirements of large modern nations. An adequate energy storage technology does not exist. If at some time an adequate energy storage technology is developed, then it would be possible to use wind and solar power, but it would still be very expensive; probably it would cost at least five times as much as nuclear power because wind and solar devices, on average, produce only about 20% of their rated power. One might suppose that spending five times as much for power would be acceptable, but from where would the money come? Health care? Education? Improving road safety? Where? The number of lives lost by spending more on renewable energy would almost certainly result in far more deaths than the rare nuclear accident.
Much discussion of the same topic going on @
http://crookedtimber.org/2011/03/17/no-nuclear-renaissance/
I found the last part of the article interesting:
“But the crucial problem for nuclear power has been fear. Fears about safety have meant that nuclear power plants have been held to much higher safety standards than alternatives like coal, which routinely spew pollutants of all kinds into the atmosphere.
More important than these fears, however, is the fear and ignorance displayed by those who have obstructed the most important single factor needed for nuclear power to become viable – a price on emissions of carbon dioxide. Some claim, like Lord Monckton, that climate science is a plot to restore the fortunes of global communism. Others like Cardinal Pell, who apparently believes that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas, say that, having ‘studied this stuff a lot’, they are qualified to overrule the experts.
Ironically, many opponents of climate science pose as defenders of nuclear power. In reality, they are its deadliest enemies.”
2010 7.o Earthquake strikes Haiti; nearly 300,000 people die; Haiti remains in ruins. Barely anyone remembers.
2010 BP Oil Spill. The only people that die are the men that worked on the oil rig. Liberals enviro-quacks go nuts. Questions about oil abound.
2011 One of the largest earthquakes in recorded history occurs off the coast of one of the most advanced nations in the world. A massive tsunami kills sevaral thousands. No one remembers a massive earthquake and tsunami because they hear the words “meltdown” and “radiation”. Ignorant masses don’t understand that a CAT scan doses a person with 5 YEARS worth of radiation in about one minute. 24 hour news a ignorant journalists whip the semi-illiterate masses into a frenzy. Gullible Germans who show a historical tendency for believing anything shut down several reactors for no reason. People like frk demand we be driven into the stoneage because their ideology.
Did you even read the portion I quoted? Let me shorten it a bit.
“But the crucial problem for nuclear power has been fear. Fears about safety have meant that nuclear power plants have been held to MUCH higher safety standards than alternatives like coal, which routinely spew pollutants of all kinds into the atmosphere. . . .
More important than these fears, however, is the fear and ignorance displayed by those who have obstructed the most important single factor needed for nuclear power to become viable – a price on emissions of carbon dioxide. . . .Ironically, many opponents of climate science pose as defenders of nuclear power. In reality, THEY are its deadliest enemies.”
I support nuclear power. I own stock in some companies that will benefit greatly from the continuation and growth of that segment of the market . I’d recommend going to Wikipedia’s “List of Nuclear Accidents” for factual, non-sensationalized accounts of , Three Mile Island, Chernobyl , etc..
I’m definitely not promoting a return to the Stone Age. . . .I’ll let that to those on the right who think, for example, that we should remain mired in the good old days before the Second Amendment had to contend with AK-47’s, and Glocks in the hands of crazy teens and post-teens in high school classrooms and grocery stores. Who think that we should ignore/resist/reject any and all regulatory attempts to solve the problem. Who believe that even with a population of 300 million die-hard “patriots” armed to the teeth we’d stand a snowball’s chance against a TRULY tyrannical government armed with drones, surface-to-surface missiles, and unlimited technological resources. Maybe the Koch brothers can supply the rebels’ needs.
I also believe that climate change is a reality. I don’t believe that some questionable research has in any way undermined that reality. I KNOW that Limbaugh was pooh-poohing global warming long before “Climategate” because he believed–and still does–that it’s a liberal plot to stop America’s progress. That in itself is almost enough to convince me that climate change is a real danger.
It would be better to avoid pejoratives and discuss only the issues. Whether people are liberal or conservative doesn’t matter; what is important in this discussion is their position on energy and climate issues.
Certainly nuclear plants should be designed so that emergency cooling systems will work regardless of natural disasters.
In my opinion, it was a serious mistake to implement uranium nuclear technology considering that there is a safer nuclear technology available. For more information, check the following links on using thorium instead of uranium:
The reactors DID have emergency backups. They had diesel power generators and batteries in case all external power was lost. But an 8.9 earthquake and resultant massive tsunami had a vote in the contest. The diesel generators were damaged. But power has been restored.
The reason I’m being so rough in my posts here is because you’re adding to the hysteria and providing misleading info.
It is a bad situation, but it’s mostly bad because of the earthquake and tsunami.
Yes, there were backups. However, it is better to design reactors to have passive emergency cooling systems which require no power. It would be even better to phase out uranium reactors and use liquid fluoride thorium reactors instead; they are safer and less expensive.
I agree that there has been too much hysteria. The damage done directly by the earthquake and tsunami is almost certainly far greater than the amount done by the reactors.
It’s also likely that if they had not had the nuclear plants, the damage done by burning coal over a few decades would have far exceeded the damage done by the nuclear plants following the earthquake. Burning coal emits noxious products of combustion which damage health but because the damage is very gradual, it is easily overlooked and less likely to cause a public outcry.
The public generally reacts more strongly when a single episode causes damage than when damage occurs gradually over a period of years, even when the damage occurring over a period of years is greater.
The news out of Japan is unrelentingly depressing. The following is a very interesting 7 i/2 minutes having nothing to do with earthquakes or reactor meltdowns.
Give it a chance if you think you’d like a combination of Philp Glass (it’s not his music) and a modern version of the didgeridoo sound played on what I believe to be (?) a contrabass clarinet .
Keep believing what you want. In 3 weeks it’ll be all but over and the news will move on to something else.
Help save the pandas.
Almost one month and counting. Time to polish the old crystal balla. . .
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/04/japans_nuclear_crisis
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d49f342-6aa4-11e0-80a1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1K1P9fitj
. . .balls!
“In 3 weeks it’ll be all but over and the news will move on to something else. ”
Nearly one year after the nuclear disaster in Japan: New York Times Online (that liberal rag), March 8, 11 PM.
Headline: “Japan’s Nuclear Energy Industry Nears Shutdown, at Least for Now”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world/asia/japan-shutting-down-its-nuclear-power-industry.html?hp
From the second page:
“But it is the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi that looks likely to have a more lasting impact, even though it has yet to claim a single life. Japan is just beginning what promises to be a radiation cleanup that will last decades of the evacuated areas around the plant, where nearly 90,000 residents lost their homes. The nation is also groping to find effective ways to monitor health and protect its food supply from contamination by the accident, which government scientists now say released about a fifth as much radioactive cesium as the Chernobyl disaster in 1986”
Radiation cleanup lasting “decades”.
Unpredictable future harm to individuals directly involved in the disaster. As of this time (2006) absolutes could not be provided for Chernobyl. But there are always those who want to provide absolutes. . .
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html
It’s “all but over”. Except for those who may become victims of the nuclear aspects of this disaster in the future.
Here, a year later, not three weeks later, during a week when Syria, Iran, Republican primary contests, and Rush Limbaugh are filling up practically every available gap in the 24/7 news cycle, it’s not hard to find an article acknowledging that it’s not “all but over.”
Oh, and this from the Economist Online:
http://www.economist.com/node/21549936
Dhammet posted: “Nearly one year after the nuclear disaster in Japan: New York Times Online (that liberal rag), March 8, 11 PM.
Headline: “Japan’s Nuclear Energy Industry Nears Shutdown, at Least for Now”
EXACTLY why is it relevant whether the NYT is liberal or conservative? Obsessing about the political viewpoint of the NYT verges on the propaganda technique known as name calling. Probably I’d be considered liberal and I strongly support nuclear power.
EXACTLY!! EXACTLY why is it relevant, you ask? It’s NOT . .
The “liberal rag” reference is for those who actually believe the Times is a liberal rag and thus would, on that basis alone, reject the contents of the article . I offer the Economist ref. in my following post to disabuse them of that . Pure objectivity is a true bitch to achieve, but I’d wager that NYT, the Economist, and the Financial Times achieve a fairly high degree of accuracy in their non-opinion articles. Speaking of FT:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/19611380-6847-11e1-a6cc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1oeaJf5OC
and for absolute disbelievers. . .
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/28/plant-chief-fukushima-nuke-plant-still-vulnerable/
These ongoing updates are a direct response to magus’ comment that “In 3 weeks it’ll be all but over and the news will move on to something else.” I, er, frk :), replied below that ” MY unerring crystal ball, which I use very sparingly, reveals that between now and March 12, 2012 the Fukushima story will be visited and revisited with each new development and that in the days surrounding the 1st anniversary of the disaster the entire incident and whatever muckraking news pertaining to ongoing research into nuclear power safety will be headlined for inquiring minds to read.
Note: This prediction will automatically be void if the end of days occurs first.”
I’d say that as crystal balls go, mine’s functioning much better than his. Things are not all hunky-dory in Japan a year later. Cleanup of the area will take years and years. And, as the who.int ref I provided earlier shows, determining the deaths resulting from a nuclear disaster is difficult . Just see where they were/are in determining Chernobyl losses.
Magus has called me (biomass) a “‘moonbat” on here.Like you, as I said above at 3/17 3:42, I support nuclear power. Takako Tsuji,in the FT article says she wants nuclear reactors to return “as long as we can be sure they’re safe”. Truth is, we’ll never be sure. But we can certainly take steps to improve the ‘chances’ that we won’t have nuclear disasters. One step is more careful consideration of location. There are obvious places where nuclear reactors should not be built—on seismic fault lines for example.
Etc. Oops!
http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/04/19/with-a-month-to-leave-a-japanese-village-weighs-options/
One ‘year’ after the BP farce:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/17/the-oil-spill-s-surprise-endings.html
MY unerring crystal ball, which I use very sparingly, reveals that between now and March 12, 2012 the Fukushima story will be visited and revisited with each new development and that in the days surrounding the 1st anniversary of the disaster the entire incident and whatever muckraking news pertaining to ongoing research into nuclear power safety will be headlined for inquiring minds to read.
Note: This prediction will automatically be void if the end of days occurs first.
There will be wars; there will be peace; there will be famine; there will be feasts;there will be death and there will be life;there will be ease;there will be strife.There will be hot; there will be cold. There will be weak;there will be bold. But he who smelleth of the sacred flower and tasteth the profane flesh will rend his garments and scar his toes with heated irons. He shall, in the final days, reveal his legal birth certificate and all will stand in awe. They shall weep with happiness and recoil in fear. And this man’s power will descend upon them; his grace shall smile upon them with. Non-believers will poop their pants and believers shall be carried to the furthest ends of the universe and fed hot fudge sundaes forever.
Someone, somewhere 500 years from now may read that last paragraph and see the truth of my powers. Personally, I stand by nothing but the hot fudge sundae part.
You may be right.
Far fewer people in Japan are suffering from the earthquake than are people in Haiti. The media have forgotten about Haiti even though the people there need more help than the people in Japan. This is not to underplay what has happened in Japan; it was a disaster. However, it’s unfortunate that Haiti has been forgotten. People have short memories.
“In 3 weeks it’ll be all over. . .”
So here we are. December 23, 2011.
This article on December 17 would seem to indicate that it is, at long last, all over, but a complete reading of the article would seem to indicate that Yoshihiko Noda’s claim may not be accurate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/world/asia/japans-prime-minister-declares-fukushima-plant-stable.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=japan%20nuclear%20fukushima&st=cse
And then, today, in the Wall Street Journal, there’s this indicating the the science behind determining the damage caused by radiation is, even more than 70 years later, far from exact (no surprise, that):
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-global-world.html?mod=WSJ_topnav_world_main
“This article on December 17 would seem to indicate that it is, at long last, all over”
A deep and mournful sigh can be heard from enviro-nazis everywhere.
15,000 deaths from the Tsunami. 0 from radiation. $210 billion in property damage. I vote we spend more time and money on dealing with tsunamis.
My crystal ball is perfectly clear.
March prediction:
“This will not be Chernobyl. There is no chance of a graphite fire, which was one of the two big problems in Chernobyl. The other being that the Chernobyl reactor did not shut down–it increased in power output. The Japanese reactors shut down and are only at about 6-8 percent power output. Plus the Japanese reactors have very advanced containment pods. There is no more fission occuring. Game over for Chicken Little. Darn.
Sorry to dissapoint the arm-flailers. Alas–no cave-dwelling. Next disaster, please. No Godzillas this time.”
Now compare to frk’s arm-flailing:
This will not be Chernobyl.” magus 3/18 1:09am
No. Apparently it will not. On that specific point from this week’s Time print (4/25)edition:
“After a review of data on the amount of radiation leaked by the by the damaged plant following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, Japanese nuclear-safety officials raised their assessment of the crisis to Level 7, the highest ranking on an international scale of nuclear incident severity—which puts the Fukushima disaster on par with the Chernobyl explosion in 1986.
“The new rating reflects the fact that officials anticipate the widespread effects of radioactive contamination not only in Japan but possibly also in nearby countries. It takes into account the long-term health consequences of exposure to radioactive material, including increased rates of hybrid cancer, as well as the physical damage to the plant buildings and predictions of how long radioactive contaminants will linger in the soil an water near the facility. The Japanese government continues to expand the original 12 mile evacuation zone around Fukushima and has barred surrounding communities from planting rice and vegetable crops out of fear the harvest could be contaminated by radioactive soil.”
To put that into a broader perspective, this from BBC.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13050228
It should be noted that the Chernobyl info includes all data from 1986 to the present. Fukushima info runs from March 12 2011 to April 12 2011. So we won’t know the accuracy of the prediction “This will not be Chernobyl” until sometime far into the distant future. Those are the safest predictions to make.”
You consider those last paragraphs from Time and the BBC arm-flailing? Is it true or not that for Fukushima we only have data from March 12 to (presently) December 24 and that for Chernobyl we have 25 years of data. To say that an indisputable statement such as that is arm-flailing and that a “This will not be Chernobyl” is necessarily “truth” seems to be at least questionable reasoning and at most pure future gazing.
And I would remind you that you said it would all be over in three weeks. Re-read those articles from the last week or two and tell me you’ve found proof there (or anywhere else, if you can) that it’s “all over”. Those news articles point to to huge fissures in your crystal balls. The largest fissure would seem to be that your claim that there had been “zero deaths” from radiation at Fukushima is somehow meaningful. It’s clear —at least from the sources I provided—that even after 25 years the full radiation impact of Chernobyl cannot be accurately assessed and that we’re no where near determining what the eventual death toll from radiation from Fukushima might be 25 years from now. “Zero deaths” possibly. Many more possibly. But you’re the one making the prediction. I’m just questioning your conclusions. Go back to my other posts with this article (frk, dhammett) and tell me where I “arm-flailing” or swingin’ by big crystal balls.
Claiming last April that “In three weeks it’ll be all over” (no, it’s not even out of the news 8 months later”) was not arm-flailing. . . Seems you were flailing something else. In most places it would be deemed illegal to do that in public. 🙂
This will not be Chernobyl. There is no chance of a graphite fire, which was one of the two big problems in Chernobyl. The other being that the Chernobyl reactor did not shut down–it increased in power output. The Japanese reactors shut down and are only at about 6-8 percent power output. Plus the Japanese reactors have very advanced containment pods. There is no more fission occuring. Game over for Chicken Little. Darn.
Sorry to dissapoint the arm-flailers. Alas–no cave-dwelling. Next disaster, please. No Godzillas this time.
*disappoint*
I support nuclear power, but let us not understate (or overstate) the nuclear problem that Japan is facing. Actually, we don’t know the exact situation. Probably it would be better to wait until all the facts are in before trying to reach conclusions.
Chernobyl was such a mess, at least in part, because of the way the Soviets built their reactors. Their nuclear subs are also apparently badly designed as well-I’m somewhat surprised that another one has not failed.
Chernobyl had no containment vessel if I recall correctly.
You recall correctly.
The Russians have their own approach to nuclear power plants-one that is rather unsafe by our standards.
“This will not be Chernobyl.” magus 3/18 1:09am
No. Apparently it will not. On that specific point from this week’s Time print (4/25)edition:
“After a review of data on the amount of radiation leaked by the by the damaged plant following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, Japanese nuclear-safety officials raised their assessment of the crisis to Level 7, the highest ranking on an international scale of nuclear incident severity—which puts the Fukushima disaster on par with the Chernobyl explosion in 1986.
“The new rating reflects the fact that officials anticipate the widespread effects of radioactive contamination not only in Japan but possibly also in nearby countries. It takes into account the long-term health consequences of exposure to radioactive material, including increased rates of hybrid cancer, as well as the physical damage to the plant buildings and predictions of how long radioactive contaminants will linger in the soil an water near the facility. The Japanese government continues to expand the original 12 mile evacuation zone around Fukushima and has barred surrounding communities from planting rice and vegetable crops out of fear the harvest could be contaminated by radioactive soil.”
To put that into a broader perspective, this from BBC.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13050228
It should be noted that the Chernobyl info includes all data from 1986 to the present. Fukushima info runs from March 12 2011 to April 12 2011. So we won’t know the accuracy of the prediction “This will not be Chernobyl” until sometime far into the distant future. Those are the safest predictions to make.
Here’s some useful information for all above to view:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
And no, magus, again, I’m not anti-nuclear power, despite your efforts to twist and misinterpret my 11:58 . . . (And even my 8:11pm for God’s sake!: a little musical interlude with no anti-nuclear intent whatsoever. I don’t know how you do it. Oh, well. )
That’s a good post; it helps put radiation into an understandable perspective.
Here’s another interesting take on the relative dangers of nuclear, oil, and coal power:
“(Of course the very worst case scenario for a nuclear plant is much worse than the very worst case scenario for any coal-fired plant; but the very worst case scenario for coal plants aggregated is…global warming.)”
http://www.discourse.net/2011/03/death-rate-per-watt-produced.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+discourse+%28Discourse.net%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
I found that parenthetical remark interesting. The strength of the conclusion in the last half of that sentence depends entirely on whether one believes global warming is a reality or a hoax. And that opinion, based on fact or politics, would seem to be the only way to assess the relative safety or danger of the various power sources. Is it the only way?
Here is some more material to put death risks into perspective:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/25-other-energy-disasters-from-the-last-year/72814/
Note that deaths resulting from non-nuclear sources receive far less publicity than nuclear accidents receive.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/14/even-candles-kill-many-more-than-nuclear-power/
It’s a reality that people are going to die in the process of producing energy.even, it would seem, wind energy (he said, noting the one strong point made by notrickzone)
“Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.” That’s a stunner. . . Is it a US figure or a worldwide figure. Does it works and civilians into account where notrick only considers workers? From:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jmoilane/nuclear/Accidents.html
But, the info on the cited page doesn’t seem to support that claim, and I have no idea where they got their figures. Estimates, mayhaps, of possible civilian deaths from radiation. Have long term studies been made of the long term effects of radiation level nuclear power workers are exposed to? Without that kind of info, the article’s claim is QUITE spurious.
However, there’s one humongous gap between the notrickzone article and the University of Michigan article. It’s necessary to look at the two more carefully.
Notrick , which, it would seem is an ironic name for the site, deals with nuclear power plant workers ONLY, and the actual source of its info is about as questionable as the umich article. To his credit the author attacks wind energy with hard info of 41 deaths of workers. Then notrick speculates in depth , dealing with worker injuries (though the only seemingly supportable claim for nuclear plant safety dealt with workers only) but fire potential (no actual injuries mentioned). and even what ‘MIGHT’ happen if turbine energy expands into “more PUBLIC areas”–like there are a lot of public areas that would be likely locations for wind turbines, or that there would be many members of the public in such areas. (We also have to remember that it has to be established that enough wind is likely to be available before a turbine farm even becomes a gleam in someone’s eye).Then we get a lengthy list from notrick of how many people are killed by everyday activites and items. Anyone up for comparing venetian blind cord safety to power plant safety? And what, actually, does the number of people killed in auto accidents have to do with this subject? Those two subjects are apples and oranges.
So. He quotes treehugger as follows:” According to one viewpoint of reports offering the comparison between wind versus nuclear energy. . .” Hmm. Wow! ONE viewpoint, he says. And whose would that be? Do notrick or treehugger not want to divulge their sources? Or are they ashamed of them? I will give notrick some credit though. Among his otherwise useless listed resources, he includes an article from inquisitr that actual mocks the findings he’s presenting!! 🙂
So we have an actual figure of deaths by wind turbines compared to unknown numbers of civilian deaths that may occur over long spans of time due to nuclear incidents.
I don’t know who do believe. . . I’d like to believe notrickzone, because, as I noted before, I own some nuclear energy related stock. On the other hand notrick is a bit too tricky to convince me. We’ll both need better info than these two articles and more expertise in the subject.