Fukushima Management and Government Performance

[Dmytry]

TBH I have a very cynical view about those 100 000 years waste sites. It sounds more like an excuse for doing nothing and storing the waste in the spent fuel pools for now, or in case of US moving waste from all the states into a single one despite that one state's protests. I don't think waste is such a big technological problem. It is more of a sociological / organizational problem. Making ourselves spend the money to make something safe for 100 000 years. Corporations and governments tend to be very short sighted and all about immediate reward (to politicians). And the coal sucks too. Exceed some temperature, and gas hydrates & permafrost will start melting, releasing methane, increasing greenhouse effect, releasing more methane. That can screw ecology up for hundred thousand years too.
While the waste from nuclear power really is more toxic per MWh generated, it is also very compact and can be contained. That is not the case for CO2. As long as waste is contained, and with plants safer than historical failure rate, nuclear really is a good option.
It is not easy decision either way. The pro nuclear will talk of how nukes are much better so far, but start generating all the electricity with nukes, and the number and severity of accidents can be expected to grow plus the waste will become an immediate issue. The anti nuclear will talk how nukes are much worse, but it also is not so, CO2 is bad. So far the only country in the world where coal lost is France. Everywhere else nuclear merely supplements the coal a little bit.

 

[Drakkith]

Alright, this is getting seriously ridiculous. It's one thing to disagree with someones opinion or their evidence or whatever. It's totally different to attack someone because you disagree with them. I think it's gone on well over long enough. Will some admins or mods or whatever please take care of this issue?

 

[Dmytry]

Alright, this is getting seriously ridiculous. It's one thing to disagree with someones opinion or their evidence or whatever. It's totally different to attack someone because you disagree with them. I think it's gone on well over long enough. Will some admins or mods or whatever please take care of this issue?

yep, what's about banning nukeng for repeatedly personally insulting me? Or that is not what you have in mind?

 

[Drakkith]

yep, what's about banning nukeng for repeatedly personally insulting me? Or that is not what you have in mind?

I don't care if it's him, me, you, whoever. This crap needs to stop. It's getting no one anywhere but angry.

 

[blazzano]

This thread illustrates the pitfall of a generally polite forum, attempting to deal with a passionate issue. You inevitably get people who push against the limits of the site's decorum, then (knowingly or unknowingly) try to hide behind the site's polite nature when their emotional posts get emotional responses. I will not name names, but if I were so inclined, I'd need to name multiple people in this thread alone.

Ironically what might help is if these was a thread or board where people could attack each other without worrying about violating normal site etiquette, but I can see how unlikely it would be for that to be implemented properly. Barring that, I don't really envy the site moderators/administrators here. They "lose" no matter what they do...

 

[Susudake]

This thread illustrates the pitfall of a generally polite forum, attempting to deal with a passionate issue. You inevitably get people who push against the limits of the site's decorum, then (knowingly or unknowingly) try to hide behind the site's polite nature when their emotional posts get emotional responses. I will not name names, but if I were so inclined, I'd need to name multiple people in this thread alone.Since I'm being implicated here, I'll respond once only. My initial post was perhaps not well written--the point was to challenge a couple of people to look at their assumptions about the safety of nuclear energy (since the considerable evidence from the mega-mess in Fukushima seems insufficient--there's my own hubris I guess).

Despite having found the attacks of one of the people who I was speaking to on another member over the course of this thread to be in poor form, I tried my best to be civil, even complimentary.

Yes there's passion, a lot of it, so I can't pretend to have been completely "within bounds," but I tried.

So I was very disappointed to read the response, which leveraged a poor choice of words to make a really over-the-top personal attack on me, misinterpreted (to my disadvantage) most of what else I wrote, and then failed to respond to my main points.

My response to that definitely wasn't 100% civil--calling him condescending, hubristic--but I stand by those words since the evidence thereof was/is plentiful. After writing that response I edited it and put in the comment box "edited for conciseness, clarity, and civility" (I have a silly thing for alliteration :-)). But I agree it doesn't move the conversation forward.

 

[Susudake]

Hmm, quoting others and responding doesn't seem to work, maybe I am indeed just stupid :0

So, as to moving forward.

This isn't about pulling rank, the old "I've been there man so shut up and listen."

But--

I was on my way back to Japan on 3/11. I stayed away for about a month monitoring the situation, and then went back to collect most of my most important things and cash and left again. So I'm a kind of nuclear refugee, now living in hotels and guest houses until I settle down again. But the point is, walking down the street in a city that the fallout maps show is now downwind due to the spring winds, is a very unpleasant feeling unlike any other I've ever experienced (I haven't been in a war but thanks to mountains, motorcycles, and encounters in numerous countries with various thugs (real Thai pirates one time) with guns/knives I've seen Death pointing his bony finger at me enough times to know that blood-freezing feeling of dread well).

This is perhaps THE major failing of the scientific paradigm, discounting the dimension of experience--in the arts that's the focus (while often missing the insights science provides)--and my posts here would mostly be an attempt to inject this messy experiental stuff into the debate, especially since those in charge in Japan do their best to wring that out.

 

[Susudake]

Now I have a couple-three questions before I get on with my day, I'll check back later:

First, a process point, the other thread, "Re: The "more political thread" besides "Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants" scientific" may be more appropriate for my prior post (continued below) than this one, but a) both are about politics, so I think the division is somewhat sloppy and not entirely germane to the situation and b) this thread seems much more lively. But I'm entirely open to (at least minimally civil and non passive-aggressive) suggestions/criticisms on where to put my thoughts down.

Then: has anyone defending nuclear power as no more hazardous to health, overall, than coal, cow dung, what have you, really addressed the elephants in the room: the waste problem, the genetic mutation factor, the half-life issue, the matter of internal radiation, etc? That was the point of a good part of my apparently poorly-worded initial post.

If I can be pointed towards those convincing defenses I'll change my tune.

Last, the scientific thread is a wonderful resource IMO for better understanding how to move forward with the nuts'n'bolts matter of getting this mess under control. Is there or could/should there be a consensus that a non-scientific thread on this forum be similarly oriented on the political/social/cultural side?

Depsite not being a scientist and this being a physics forum, I joined and made my first post about Japan because I couldn't find another active forum anywhere on the 'net (as we know, even finding info of any kind isn't easy) and because I saw a couple of others adding this dimension to the main scientific thread.

But there are these two threads that overlap somewhat while not referring, at least in their titles, to these other dimensions.

So, is this the best place to continue adding thoughts as to how the cultural aspects (here, Japanese) of the "host country" to the latest nuclear disaster affect the response?

Aside from trying to survive like everyone else I'm also having to spend hours a day dealing with this major disruption in my life, i.e. suddenly being homeless and without income; so I'm disinclined to waste time.

I'll add before signing off that, FWIW, my friends in Japan are worried, not well-informed of what's going on, and are hungry for good, solid information. So I hope we can all keep our eyes on the prize in these discussions--clarity, awareness, helping, even in a small way, to solve this huge problem and avoid similar disasters in the future.

 

[Drakkith]

Then: has anyone defending nuclear power as no more hazardous to health, overall, than coal, cow dung, what have you, really addressed the elephants in the room: the waste problem, the genetic mutation factor, the half-life issue, the matter of internal radiation, etc? That was the point of a good part of my apparently poorly-worded initial post.

I believe these have all had numerous posts on them. The problem is that people don't agree. I can find articles and evidence that says radiations at certain levels is almost entirely harmless, yet another person can bring up articles and evidence that says the complete opposite. The fact that any injury caused by radiation may take decades to take affect and not even be traceable to the radiation doesn't make things any easier.

In the end it simply comes down to opinion vs opinion.

 

[Susudake]

I believe these have all had numerous posts on them. The problem is that people don't agree. I can find articles and evidence that says radiations at certain levels is almost entirely harmless, yet another person can bring up articles and evidence that says the complete opposite. The fact that any injury caused by radiation may take decades to take affect and not even be traceable to the radiation doesn't make things any easier.

In the end it simply comes down to opinion vs opinion.

You mean just like the "balance" sought in the MSM approach----like saying "the AMA has determined cigarette smoke is a major cause of lung cancer, while the tobacco industry counters that tobacco is harmless to health."

Trying my best to stay civil, but this kind of response makes my blood boil. The qualifiers "certain levels," "almost," etc render your response "almost" meaningless. I think you know damn well what I'm talking about

And while in a particular case tracing the cause may be difficult, the fact remains that it is absolutely well known that radiation rips DNA apart in massive amounts, causing genetic mutations. Coal does too? And oil?

 

[clancy688]

One question about 100.000 year waste storage facilities:

Why are they so obsessed with these? A few hundred or thousand years should be enough - all those dangerous materials, C137, S89, S90, C60 etc. are nearly gone after thousand years.
What stays is uranium and plutonium - still hazardous as hell, but not as distributable as those short living fission products, or am I wrong? So storage should be easier then.
In Chernobyl, over 50% of C137 and I131 escaped the reactor - but well below 1% of plutonium...

 

[Dmytry]

One question about 100.000 year waste storage facilities:

Why are they so obsessed with these? A few hundred or thousand years should be enough - all those dangerous materials, C137, S89, S90, C60 etc. are nearly gone after thousand years.
What stays is uranium and plutonium - still hazardous as hell, but not as distributable as those short living fission products, or am I wrong? So storage should be easier then.
In Chernobyl, over 50% of C137 and I131 escaped the reactor - but well below 1% of plutonium...

keep in mind though that alpha-active transuranic stuff is 20x more dangerous per decay, or even worse, depending to the nucleus location within cell (recoil). I've read that heavy metals tend to collect on chromosomes to some extent, then the recoil causes a lot of damage instantly, then the cell either self destructs which is okay, or mis-repairs, which sometimes (very rarely per cell) makes it capable of runaway reproduction (cancer). The problem is that it takes just 1 cell to kill entire organism. The cells are EXTREMELY reliable - but there's 10^11 - 10^12 cells in the human body, and it is a sad fact that with such lifespan, and such number of cells about 40% of people get cancer during their lifetime and about 20% die from it, even with all the super amazing safeguards; in light of this, no threshold can be expected on any extra errors introduced into DNA, the DNA errors already kill. Bottom line is - it is just really difficult to evaluate the danger from old spent fuel sitting there for hundred thousand years - really difficult to know how much will leach out over the time, there is no good data as of the health effects, the role of nucleus recoil, etc.

There's also this concern... while i believe that LNT is true - but suppose that there is other kind of threshold. The threshold at which organism detects radiation, and starts to activate some extra self repair mechanism. That would make LNT under-estimate effects at doses below that threshold. Now, if we think where the threshold might be - as the single cells are physically not capable of measuring small doses of radiation individually (too tiny, need too long averaging time, the single cell's doses are never small but only rare), the whole organism would have to detect whole body dose of radiation. Then it is reasonable to assume that threshold would be somewhere at the dose rates where there's noticeable physiological effects, that can be determined by blood tests etc (and thus can perhaps be determined by organism itself). Those dose rates are not small.
It is like in poisoning there's a steeper rise before the threshold that induces vomiting, than past this threshold.
Ultimately there is a doubt in the accuracy of our evaluation of low dose effects of radiation, and the doubt goes both ways.
If you assume that there's 10% probability that our theories are wrong and LNT is grossly incorrect due to complexity of the organism bla bla - then we have to assign equal probability to the possibility that we underestimate low dose effects and to that we overestimate. That would result in stricter standards, not laxer.

So the prudent option is to store it as well as possible. Surely there are sites that will be undisturbed for millions years, the problem is to find them.
Except that currently a lot of spent fuel is stored very badly - in the spent fuel pools originally intended to hold several times less fuel, right next to the reactor - and the safety 'resolutions' by NRC ignore the extra danger to SFP from the proximity to the reactor. That is much more immediate danger. This stuff needs to be put into dry storage casks and the number of rods in the spent fuel pools should be kept to a minimum, rather than to the maximum as it is now.

 

[Luca Bevil]

Ditto.

My thumbs are up for Dimytry.
I subcribe every word of what he just wroye.

 

[Drakkith]

You mean just like the "balance" sought in the MSM approach----like saying "the AMA has determined cigarette smoke is a major cause of lung cancer, while the tobacco industry counters that tobacco is harmless to health."

Trying my best to stay civil, but this kind of response makes my blood boil. The qualifiers "certain levels," "almost," etc render your response "almost" meaningless. I think you know damn well what I'm talking about

This is exactly my point. There was absolutely NO reason to purposely word your post like this other than to vent your own anger and frustration at me simply because it appears that I disagree with your views.

First, let's clear a few things up here. There is absolutely NO disagreement between anyone that radiation can and does do harm. That was NEVER an issue.

Second, the analogy to the stance taken by tobacco is way way out of proportion compared to what we are discussing. Again, no one here is saying, like the tobacco industry said about tobacco, that radiation is harmless. It is a FACT that even low low doses of radiation are harmful if given a long enough time to accumulate damage. A better analogy is saying that breathing secondhand smoke for 2 hours in a restraunt is generally harmless. Is it? Is there any possibility that the smoke actually did meaningful damage or might lead to it? Like the radiation issue, it all comes down to conflicting reports. (This is just an example, don't get uppity over it)

Now, given that there are conflicting reports about this from reputable sources, AND that many of the effects may take decades to show, what would you have everyone do? If you can't give reasonable evidence that someone's cancer or whatever was caused by radiation thirty years ago, and that current reports show a small but clear rise in cancer rates among those affected by the radiation, what can you do? Do you attribute it to the radiation or not?

I remind you to look and think closely at the above issue. It would be 100% foolish to attribute every single cancer that is questionable to that single source of radiation. And it would also be foolish to attribute none of it as well. I cannot think of anything else that you can do except for track the rates and make educated guesses. Saying that, I do have to say that I would most definitively support airing at least a little on the side of caution in general with regards to radiation. I do NOT believe in needlessly exposing people to any, and I am 100% for safety features and regulations that are REASONABLE.

But again, that would come back to the OPINION on what is reasonable and what isn't. So let's not even start on the whole topic again.

Trying my best to stay civil, but this kind of response makes my blood boil

Why? Please tell me what part of my post you have a problem with. To the best of my knowledge I took neither side of the argument, and only pointed out that there in fact ARE 2 sides to the issue.

The qualifiers "certain levels," "almost," etc render your response "almost" meaningless.

Then you should quit raging over something so minor and focus on the whole post, which is 100% understandable. If you cannot have a conversation on a subject without becoming angry, then perhaps you shouldn't have those conversations? I can gurantee you that getting upset won't help you and it won't help anyone else.

 

[Drakkith]

So the prudent option is to store it as well as possible. Surely there are sites that will be undisturbed for millions years, the problem is to find them.
Except that currently a lot of spent fuel is stored very badly - in the spent fuel pools originally intended to hold several times less fuel, right next to the reactor - and the safety 'resolutions' by NRC ignore the extra danger to SFP from the proximity to the reactor. That is much more immediate danger. This stuff needs to be put into dry storage casks and the number of rods in the spent fuel pools should be kept to a minimum, rather than to the maximum as it is now.

Alright. So why don't they do this? What are some issues they face? Please don't blow this off or think I'm condescending you or anything. I would just like to know the problems faced in long term fuel storage and why they would store it somewhere unsafe. Please, don't try to bring up the "they are evil/incompetent/lazy/whatever" that I've seen before from you. I'm talking about real issues here that can be quantified, not merely guessed at, such as cost, resistance to long term storage in the public, etc.

 

[Susudake]

Drakkith,

I'll try to respond to your "opinions and opinions" post later, when I am better situated to do so. I don't know who else on this forum is in my situation, but this accident/disaster has upended my life and it's difficult to remain dispassionate.

IMO bloodless, dispassionate calculations of risk were a factor in getting us in this situation in the first place so passion's not necessarily a bad thing.

And, don't forget, there a numerous other nuke plants in Japan that are just accidents waiting to happen with a small push from mother nature. What if another one, or two experience similar accidents in the next few years, or if another earthquake/tsunami derails the process at Fukushima months or years from now while at the same time causing another plant to break down like this? Will you then reconsider that perhaps possibilities are more important that probabilities?

I do strongly disagree though with your assessment of the pro/con sides of the nuclear issue. I do seem to have trouble articulating it clearly so, again, maybe later. I hope that if, in the future, one of us recalls this exchange and thinks "see, I told you so," that it's you, not me.

Much of the point I'm trying to make is that radiation (see Dmytry's post above) is a special case and so in working to prevent these kind of disasters one should err 1000% on the side of caution.

 

[rowmag]

Drakkith,

I'll try to respond to your "opinions and opinions" post later, when I am better situated to do so. I don't know who else on this forum is in my situation, but this accident/disaster has upended my life and it's difficult to remain dispassionate.

IMO bloodless, dispassionate calculations of risk were a factor in getting us in this situation in the first place so passion's not necessarily a bad thing.
[...]
Much of the point I'm trying to make is that radiation (see Dmytry's post above) is a special case and so in working to prevent these kind of disasters one should err 1000% on the side of caution.

Very sorry to hear about the disruption to your life, and to everyone else who has had to evacuate. I'm close enough to see measurable effects locally, though nowhere near close enough to have to evacuate, so perhaps I can partially understand your situation. It has certainly been stressful for anyone in a broad region around the power plant.

I think the "fault" was not so much dispassion, but simply a failure to believe that things like giant tsunamis or prolonged disconnections from the grid need to be taken into account. And apparently not for failure of the issues to be raised, but due to failure to find motivation to do something about them. This is not an issue unique to Fukushima Daiichi, by the way, but the same dynamic seems to happen with lots of human projects. I don't know what can be done about that, if it is human nature. But it can certainly be infuriating at times.

As far as radiation being special, I wonder if that is due to a failure to really study and confront the effects thereof. There has been a lot of research on how to deal with it, and this event will doubtless spur on a lot more, but I can't help but wonder if the end of the Cold War meant that it stopped being something people felt they had to know about, think about, study or teach about. Not that people had all the answers then, but my sense (partly from history books) is that they tried to think about it, at least before the shift to Mutually Assured Destruction rendered such practical concerns moot. I mean, for example, what are acceptable ways to deal with contaminated schoolyard topsoil? Nobody has had to think about that until recently, when it suddenly became a pressing issue, so there are no ready answers out there to be had. (If such lessons were learned from Chernobyl, they haven't been propagated over to here that I have seen. On the other hand, I believe Chernobyl did contribute to the body of knowledge on cesium uptake in plants, which may be useful for decontamination. So some things have been learned.)

Just a rather incomplete thought...

 

[Dmytry]

Alright. So why don't they do this? What are some issues they face? Please don't blow this off or think I'm condescending you or anything. I would just like to know the problems faced in long term fuel storage and why they would store it somewhere unsafe.

In the real world, you have to get an answer to why they would do that first, before you can ask why they don't do that.
Money, very simple. There has to be a commercial incentive to do that. To unload a spent fuel pool to it's original load, takes extra storage casks versus the minimum required. Dry storage casks exist. In fact TEPCO uses them. The common spent fuel pools (away from reactor, at ground level) exist. TEPCO uses that too. Not to unload the spent fuel pool to it's original size, but to deal with the fuel after the pool totally ran out of space.
It takes N extra casks worth M $ to unload a pool to original size, N>0 , M>0 , the incentive however is very close to 0 , especially after NRC does a study and declares the risk to pool so small it's not worth spending an extra million on it's safety, at which point even if engineers want that, good luck convincing the management.

Please, don't try to bring up the "they are evil/incompetent/lazy/whatever" that I've seen before from you. I'm talking about real issues here that can be quantified, not merely guessed at, such as cost, resistance to long term storage in the public, etc.

Is simple assumption that they are not a charity equates to evil/lazy?
Evidently it does here, contrasted with all this talk about how they're all good people doing their best bla bla bla bla, which can only be rebutted with examples of how the real world is not like this, examples which you label evil.
The lack of commercial incentive is a very real issue, I assure you. A corporation is under an obligation to it's shareholders to maximize revenue. It is under obligation to not spend any extra $ it doesn't have to spend. Even if I were the CEO and wanted the pools restored to original capacity I would have to justify the extra spending - there's a lot of safeguards in the corporation to prevent massive extra spending like that.

 

[Dmytry]

Very sorry to hear about the disruption to your life, and to everyone else who has had to evacuate. I'm close enough to see measurable effects locally, though nowhere near close enough to have to evacuate, so perhaps I can partially understand your situation. It has certainly been stressful for anyone in a broad region around the power plant.

I think the "fault" was not so much dispassion, but simply a failure to believe that things like giant tsunamis or prolonged disconnections from the grid need to be taken into account. And apparently not for failure of the issues to be raised, but due to failure to find motivation to do something about them. This is not an issue unique to Fukushima Daiichi, by the way, but the same dynamic seems to happen with lots of human projects. I don't know what can be done about that, if it is human nature. But it can certainly be infuriating at times.

Precisely. And it is compounded by human inability or unwillingness to admit such fallibility, to use the historical data to evaluate human reliability, etc.

As far as radiation being special, I wonder if that is due to a failure to really study and confront the effects thereof. There has been a lot of research on how to deal with it, and this event will doubtless spur on a lot more, but I can't help but wonder if the end of the Cold War meant that it stopped being something people felt they had to know about, think about, study or teach about. Not that people had all the answers then, but my sense (partly from history books) is that they tried to think about it, at least before the shift to Mutually Assured Destruction rendered such practical concerns moot.

I think so too. At least the difference between radioactivity (which is of something, e.g. of dirt), and radiation, was taught. As well as alpha/beta/gamma/neutron distinction.

I mean, for example, what are acceptable ways to deal with contaminated schoolyard topsoil? Nobody has had to think about that until recently, when it suddenly became a pressing issue, so there are no ready answers out there to be had. (If such lessons were learned from Chernobyl, they haven't been propagated over to here that I have seen. On the other hand, I believe Chernobyl did contribute to the body of knowledge on cesium uptake in plants, which may be useful for decontamination. So some things have been learned.)

Just a rather incomplete thought...

Well, the decontamination via sunflowers is funny. I don't believe it worked to any practical extent other than giving some mental comfort. Say, the sunflowers can concentrate it 10x wet-weight versus soil (probably an overestimate)... then consider the mass of soil. Then there's the stuff that got deposited deep, got chemically stuck in clay [not sure what is the mechanism] and which will slowly be leaching out, at a rate that sunflowers won't change.

The way to deal it... well if you own a Geiger counter, when you have food testing - you can minimize your exposure a lot. A wild boar in Germany, entirely ignorant of radiation, can have thousands Bq/kg of Cs-137 in its meat. Humans living in same place can have few tens to a hundred even though humans too like truffles. There is no magic solution. The way of living has to be changed. Also it's hard to do food testing. There is enormous incentive for the food producers not to test. The german solution - and germans are very law abiding people - is that government pays market price for contaminated meat that had to be destroyed. I don't think anything else would work, without compensation there won't be testing.

 

[Susudake]

Very sorry to hear about the disruption to your life, and to everyone else who has had to evacuate. I'm close enough to see measurable effects locally, though nowhere near close enough to have to evacuate, so perhaps I can partially understand your situation. It has certainly been stressful for anyone in a broad region around the power plant.

Hi rowmag, thanks for your concern, let me clarify: I wasn't living close to FDI, but decided to leave because I didn't feel confident the situation there couldn't possibly get significantly worse in the short term--and that's mostly from reading the science thread here at pf. So one could label my a flyjin, that's fine, I'm just being prudent. If they get this sucker under control in the coming months I'll move back.

So I'm kind of a refugee by choice, but IMO it's a reasonable choice. I'll add that, as I wrote before, friends of mine, be they in Kanto or Kansai (the two places I've spent my decade in Japan), appear to be pretty poorly informed (through little fault of their own) but also looking for info, they've all asked me to give them links so they can get better educated.

I wasn't trying to be a whiner, especially since I wasn't living in a directly affected area. I have two acquaintances whose homes were swept away (they survived), and the gf of one of them lives in the 20-30km zone and doesn't feel able to leave because the rest of her family is staying. They are the ones who have it real hard.

My point was really about people implying I'm alarmist when they're sitting comfortably far away from the problem, kind of armchair quarterbacking.

As to the special nature of radiation, I'm referring to its poisonous longevity, it's mutagenic nature, etc., problems not associated (or relatively minimally so) with other energy raw materials--coal, oil, etc. It's a response to people saying "well, coal kills people too, oil does too," etc, any of these arguments saying nuke power's on the same level in terms of risks.

Never mind such disingenuous responses to my and others' so-called alarmism as "then you're against x-rays too?" To that last I should have responded it was intentionally or not obfuscating the critical difference between external and internal exposure; i.e. disinformation.

I'd also bring up the fact that back in the 40's they had x-ray machines in shoe stores so people could better "see" how they're shoes fit. Then, oops, serious medical problems resulted. Or the radon baths people used to take (I saw a sign for one not too many years ago--in CA IIRC). There's plenty of evidence that humankind creates dangerous things without enough concern for eventualities, then only belatedly realizes "oh oh we need more safeguards."

I've read we introduce ca. 65,000 new chemicals into the environment each year and few if any are tested for their individual (never mind synergistic) effects on human health. And then when follies like DDT get exposed, we just move on like that's not part of a larger problem, one of perception, of ethics, of morality, even spirituality.

i don't think all company's/people running them are evil, but again it's nearly axiomatic that making large amounts of money can make people turn a blind eye to potential harms produced by the relevant cash cow.

So we have people playing around with our genetic heritage in order to make money, when it's not even necessary! It's a big reason I have little patience with the bloodless but oh-so-reasonable and calm "don't worry, we're scientists in white lab coats, you can trust us" types. They don't really have a good track record but that doesn't seem to quench their own inextinguishable passion for more of the same.

 

[Drakkith]

I'll try to respond to your "opinions and opinions" post later, when I am better situated to do so. I don't know who else on this forum is in my situation, but this accident/disaster has upended my life and it's difficult to remain dispassionate.

You can be passionate all you want. This isn't about passion. This is about complete disregard for anyone elses opinion other than your own or other people who agree with you.

Will you then reconsider that perhaps possibilities are more important that probabilities?

You don't even know what my signature is referring to.

I do strongly disagree though with your assessment of the pro/con sides of the nuclear issue.

Alright. Well, when you can tell me why, please do.

Much of the point I'm trying to make is that radiation (see Dmytry's post above) is a special case and so in working to prevent these kind of disasters one should err 1000% on the side of caution.

I'm not against that, nor have I ever been.

In the real world, you have to get an answer to why they would do that first, before you can ask why they don't do that.
Money, very simple. There has to be a commercial incentive to do that.

How about things like the government not upholding it's end and taking on fuel and such. (From my thread on Hazardous Radioactive Materials, a post by Astronuc I believe) Let's get things straight here. I am 100% in agreement that cost is a big factor. It would be entirely foolish of me to deny it. However, in my opinion it is also 100% foolish to consider that the ONLY factor.

It takes N extra casks worth M $ to unload a pool to original size, N>0 , M>0 , the incentive however is very close to 0 , especially after NRC does a study and declares the risk to pool so small it's not worth spending an extra million on it's safety, at which point even if engineers want that, good luck convincing the management.

A mostly fair assessment in my opinion.

Evidently it does here, contrasted with all this talk about how they're all good people doing their best bla bla bla bla, which can only be rebutted with examples of how the real world is not like this, examples which you label evil.

They only get labeled evil if its obvious that someone wrong happened and was covered up or a major safety rule was purposely diregarded, and etc. If someone just wasn't forseen, then no, not evil.

As to the special nature of radiation, I'm referring to its poisonous longevity, it's mutagenic nature, etc., problems not associated (or relatively minimally so) with other energy raw materials--coal, oil, etc. It's a response to people saying "well, coal kills people too, oil does too," etc, any of these arguments saying nuke power's on the same level in terms of risks.

I don't think the argument has ever been that radiation is less dangerous than coal. They arguments have been that when you look back into history, MANY more people have died because of coal, gas, ETC than nuclear power. Trying to infer that people believe radiation is just the same as coal and such is simply incorrect.

Never mind such disingenuous responses to my and others' so-called alarmism as "then you're against x-rays too?" To that last I should have responded it was intentionally or not obfuscating the critical difference between external and internal exposure; i.e. disinformation.

Arguably this is similar to implying that the other side of the argument believes that safety isn't an issue or that radiation isn't dangerous.

There's plenty of evidence that humankind creates dangerous things without enough concern for eventualities, then only belatedly realizes "oh oh we need more safeguards."

Sure, this was never in question. The issue has been how far do you go for safety. You believe we havn't gone far enough and because people are people we can't be trusted to safely have nuclear power. Is that correct?

i don't think all company's/people running them are evil, but again it's nearly axiomatic that making large amounts of money can make people turn a blind eye to potential harms produced by the relevant cash cow.

Again, there most definitively are people that do this. On the flip side there are people that don't. Just depends on which side you believe has the larger makeup.

So we have people playing around with our genetic heritage in order to make money, when it's not even necessary! It's a big reason I have little patience with the bloodless but oh-so-reasonable and calm "don't worry, we're scientists in white lab coats, you can trust us" types.

That's fine. It's always good to have skeptics around to make sure we are doing the right things or looking in the right directions. My only issue is lumping everyone into one category.

 

[Susudake]

You can be passionate all you want. This isn't about passion. This is about complete disregard for anyone elses opinion other than your own or other people who agree with you.

Guess what--ha!--I have to say...you're wrong. Basing such a statement on a couple of my posts is jumping the gun my friend...have a look in the mirror before you make such accusations.As to the radiation vs. coal etc. argument:

Just because more people HAVE died from these other unclean technologies (which have been around for centuries rather than just decades) has absolutely no bearing on the matter of their relative dangers, that should be obvious. The potential for deaths from radiation is many orders of magnitudes greater. Do we need to have a few more Chernobyls/Fukushimas (or disasters that dwarf either, entirely possible--in fact, I'd say probable in Japan if BAU continues) for that to be clear to you?

I'm not arguing that we can't have safe nuclear power. I'm arguing that given the potential risks it's simply not worth attmpting to achieve that very difficult (I'd say nearly impossible) goal. Every hi-tech enterprise is bound to have accidents along the way since real-world conditions always throw curve balls, and then improvements are made. Again, my argument is that when the consequences of one of those accidents can be devastating on a national or even international scale (see, um, Chernobyl), and given the track-record of the nuclear industry so far (aside from the three big ones so far, hundreds of smaller accidents, numerous very close calls, and lots of coverups of both) I, and it would seem millions of other regular old folks, are not so confident.

Yep, maybe we're just ignorant and unjustifiably suspicious of the whole nuclear power enterprise. If that leads to its demise, what might the results be, worst-case scenario? Economic meltdown? That would certainly result in suffering now (whereas, let's see, the current model of economic growth--endless economic expansion--on a finite planet will lead to suffering later); but as I tried to point out to nuceng, losing our creature comforts might not be the worst thing after all.

But the flip side, that continuing with nuclear power plants as they are currently being constructed might lead to irradiating a huge swath of land. Considering the past 40-50 years have seen three major crises, how long until our luck runs out?

I thought I've hammered that point home numerous times...maybe I'm incapable of getting the point across, or maybe some of you aren't capable of understanding or accepting that.

Your above statement about my disregard for dissenting opinions smacks of bad faith but I'll refrain from geting into a tit-for-tat with you. I'll just ask you to reconsider that statement and refrain from blasting me or others without better cause to do so.

 

[NUCENG]

Susudake, I have reread your posts on this thread. I have cut out things like the tobacco industry, chemicals created each year, and some repetitive stuff. I have also deleted stuff about me and other posters which I don’t think had anything to do with this thread.

I have tried to boil it down to what you are saying. It may be flawed, if so tell me what I’ve missed or misinterpreted.

I Radiation
One word: radiation. You'd think it'd be obvious, but it seems the more of an insider to the nuclear power industry one is, the more one has forgotten this simple fact.

Radiation is the most poisonous thing on the planet, but more importantly poisonous in a way that is many orders of magnitude worse than others (i.e. the amount of genetic mutations it can cause).

Much of the point I'm trying to make is that radiation (see Dmytry's post above) is a special case and so in working to prevent these kind of disasters one should err 1000% on the side of caution.

As to the special nature of radiation, I'm referring to its poisonous longevity, it's mutagenic nature, etc., problems not associated (or relatively minimally so) with other energy raw materials--coal, oil, etc. It's a response to people saying "well, coal kills people too, oil does too," etc, any of these arguments saying nuke power's on the same level in terms of risks.

I apologize about jumping to the conclusion that medical applications or radiation would be something you would allow to continue. Yes, the potential damage of a low dose of radiation may be outweighed by the ability to diagnose or treat diseases. I thought it was a logical extension of the statement that radiation is the most poisonous thing on the planet.

So the best case scenario you want would be to shutdown all nuclear plants, scrap and bury all nuclear weapons, and only allow applications of radioactivity that are justified by medical necessity. I won’t repeat claims about coal or oil or radioactive bananas. But the fact is that there will still be radiation out there courtesy of cosmic radiation previous fallout, and naturally occurring radioisotopes in the air, water, and earth. Is that fair? Your position is that even one mSv more is too great a risk. I understand that is your belief.

My belief is that even the releases from severe accident cannot be distinguished from background in areas outside the affected area. Total deaths and cancers must be estimated but can’t be verified. As long as that remains true, I believe that the benefits of nuclear outweigh the risks. I won’t change your belief by my cold-blooded calculations, and you won’t change mine with your passionate approach.


II Other Technical Issues
Then: has anyone defending nuclear power as no more hazardous to health, overall, than coal, cow dung, what have you, really addressed the elephants in the room: the waste problem, the genetic mutation factor, the half-life issue, the matter of internal radiation, etc?

There are no long-term solutions yet for storage, and no one can guarantee that any storage site thus selected or under construction (like in Finland) will be 100% secure for 100,000 years. This is the elephant in the room that nuke power supporters seem mostly unwilling to acknowledge.

There are two clear paths for treatment of spent fuel and high level waste from nuclear facilities. The first is geological storage. And the second is a combination of reprocessing and reducing the amount of waste going to geological storage. Today France reprocesses their own fuel and provides that service for other countries. In the United States the government which owns the uranium used by nuclear power plants was required by law to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for geologic storage in 1985. The planned reprocessing capability in the US was abandoned by President Jimmy Carter. These were political decisions, not technical. As much as we would like we can’t turn back the clock. We have to provide for interim storage for spent fuel.

III Quantitative vs Qualitative Decision Making.
I'm not arguing that we can't have safe nuclear power. I'm arguing that given the potential risks it's simply not worth it. I thought I've hammered that point home numerous times...maybe I'm incapable of getting the point across, or maybe you aren't capable of understanding or accepting that.

No nuclear power plant can be designed to be 100% safe--no anything can be.

The risk of potentially poisoning half of the planet means the c factor in hazard x consequences=risk is as close to infinity as you can get on this earth. And even to a purely science-minded person that should make the equation clear: the only safe planet is a nuclear-free one.

You (i mean the impersonal you) can argue all day about the deaths caused by coal, etc, and use that to promote nuke energy. But in the end, dangers from coal dust, CO2, dams for hydro, what have you, are simply not of the magnitude of those from radiation, that's just obvious to anyone who's not lying to others or, worse, to themselves.

Better yet, consider something--we got ourselves into these many messes, or rather some of us have, by favoring intellect over compassion, the head over the heart--maybe it's time to redress that imbalance.

IMO bloodless, dispassionate calculations of risk were a factor in getting us in this situation in the first place so passion's not necessarily a bad thing.

Last, no matter how many facts and figures you put out there, they won't cover up these incontrovertible truths:

Or address the hazard formula as it pertains to something so GD dangerous.

This last request kind of surprised me. It seems to ask me for a technical response which was something you distrusted, Say the word and I will trot out the PRAs that I have found during my research. I will do so if you want me to, but I am reluctant because everything else you have said tells me you would reject the conclusions out of hand. I am still working on a response to Dmytry on the 1:700,000 year estimate of a severe spent fuel pool accident. I am having to do a lot of research because this is not my forte.

The difference between bloodless, dispassionate calculations and a passion or heart-driven view of the world is a wide gap to bridge. Nuclear power is only one area where the scientific capability and the humanitarian impacts are in conflict. Science and its benefits have come with costs. Nuclear power isn’t perfectly safe but you agreed that nothing is totally safe. The decision to run or shutdown power plants is a political question. Again we are on opposite sides of that debate. Both of us can state our opinions and interpret facts and conclusions. If the economics or regulations make operating nuclear plants uneconomic then your side will prevail. If my analysis and conclusions are more persuasive, your side will have to keep fighting.

IV
So your choice of topic is THE topic? I consider challenging spurious arguments about the relative safety of nuclear power to be one of the most important topics around this whole disaster. More evidence of what some call "control issues."

So, is this the best place to continue adding thoughts as to how the cultural aspects (here, Japanese) of the "host country" to the latest nuclear disaster affect the response?

No. The topic here is supposed to be about TEPCO Management and Government Performance - trying to find information about the decisions and interaction between the utilities and the regulators . It was not intended to be about politics unless that explains why the regulators in Japan didn’t do their job,

The Posting guidelines for PF include the following:

• “Do not hijack an existing thread with off-topic comments or questions--start a new thread.
  
• Any off-topic posts will be deleted or moved to an appropriate forum per administrator or mentor discretion.”

I’m not asking to have your posts deleted, nor am I asking that my posts that you considered out of bounds should be deleted. I definitely don’t want this thread to be locked because we can’t be civil. I will redouble my efforts to screen out my sarcasm and try to stick to what I know best: facts, figures, calculations, logic, and analytical thinking. That is not a putdown of emotion or compassion or following your heart. It is just not the way I think as an engineer. If I talk about my experience too much, it comes with age. It doesn’t mean I’m right about everything. Neither is it trying to make you feel bad about your own experience.

I would think your issues that we should shutdown plants all over the world is more appropriate of the Social Science forum, the General Discussions Politics and World Affairs forum. If you want the discussion to include technical input, there is the sticky “Nuclear Power Thread or the “Other Political Thread. Finally if you will write up the kinds of things you really want to discuss, start a new thread on this forum.

Even if you or I never agree on anything, an exchange of two opposing views may help others refine their own opinions. I really would like to get this thread back on topic because the failures of TEPCO management and regulators should be examined for every country that operates nuclear facilities. You are welcome to participate on topic.

 

[Susudake]

Susudake, I have reread your posts on this thread. I have cut out things like the tobacco industry, chemicals created each year, and some repetitive stuff.

Because you've decided that's irrelevant. That's your right and your choice.

I have also deleted stuff about me and other posters which I don’t think had anything to do with this thread.

I guess if I had time and inclination I could go back and do the same to your posts.

I have tried to boil it down to what you are saying. It may be flawed, if so tell me what I’ve missed or misinterpreted.

Time is very limited so I can't repsond to all of it. Sorry.

I apologize about jumping to the conclusion that medical applications or radiation would be something you would allow to continue.

So the best case scenario you want would be to shutdown all nuclear plants, scrap and bury all nuclear weapons,

Sounds like a good idea to me, anyone else?

If not, then you prefer a world with nuclear weapons?

and only allow applications of radioactivity that are justified by medical necessity.

Show me where I said exactly that. It's interesting that your interpretations of my points invariably seem to lead to putting stronger words in my mouth.

I won’t repeat claims about coal or oil or radioactive bananas. But the fact is that there will still be radiation out there courtesy of cosmic radiation previous fallout, and naturally occurring radioisotopes in the air, water, and earth. Is that fair? Your position is that even one mSv more is too great a risk. I understand that is your belief.

Wrong. Again, taking my statements to their extreme. And again, it's the fallout, the internal exposure, that I maintain is the biggest reason to get rid of nukes.

For your part, you're drawing a false equivalency between the natural and background radiation we've evolved with, and the amounts, which could be many orders of magnitude greater, that we may release if we continue relying on nuke power--I'd say probably will given enough time in light of how much we've already leaked/spilled/tossed into the environment in only a few decades.

Let me then ask you: you consider bio-accumulation of radioactive materials in the food chain leading to ingestion by, eventually, humans, and the resulting mortality and, much worse, resulting genetic mutations, to be just a minor problem, one that doesn't justify getting rid of this technology in favor of others that don't present such dangers?

My belief is that even the releases from severe accident cannot be distinguished from background in areas outside the affected area. Total deaths and cancers must be estimated but can’t be verified. As long as that remains true, I believe that the benefits of nuclear outweigh the risks. I won’t change your belief by my cold-blooded calculations, and you won’t change mine with your passionate approach.

For once we agree.

II Other Technical Issues
Then: has anyone defending nuclear power as no more hazardous to health, overall, than coal, cow dung, what have you, really addressed the elephants in the room: the waste problem, the genetic mutation factor, the half-life issue, the matter of internal radiation, etc?

There are no long-term solutions yet for storage, and no one can guarantee that any storage site thus selected or under construction (like in Finland) will be 100% secure for 100,000 years. This is the elephant in the room that nuke power supporters seem mostly unwilling to acknowledge.

There are two clear paths for treatment of spent fuel and high level waste from nuclear facilities. The first is geological storage. And the second is a combination of reprocessing and reducing the amount of waste going to geological storage.

"Clear paths"? Back that up with some specifics please. 60 years on there is no long-term storage solution anywhere in the world, the only proposed solution thus far for the US, Yucca mountain, has been found to be unsuitable. Where are other countries storing their waste--permanently? Now the US is talking about putting it in Mongolia. It's interesting the proposed storage sites are without exception in poor countries or (as with Yucca mountain) in areas inhabited by minorities.

Today France reprocesses their own fuel and provides that service for other countries.

And yet the amount of waste world-wide continues to grow.

In the United States the government which owns the uranium used by nuclear power plants was required by law to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel for geologic storage in 1985. The planned reprocessing capability in the US was abandoned by President Jimmy Carter.

Singling out Carter tells me more about your set of political beliefs than anything else.

These were political decisions, not technical.

Is that so? Purely political? No problems on the technical side, like say, the inability to assure that a secure storage site will remain so for 10s of thousands of years if not longer? That's simply not true.

As much as we would like we can’t turn back the clock. We have to provide for interim storage for spent fuel.

Like putting it four stories up in an over-stocked SFP next to the ocean in a seismically-active tsunami-prone area. Or in huge silos, filled with millions of gallons of all kinds of radioactive materials, the mixing of which can have synergistic and explosive effects neither entirely understood, yet, nor guarded against--yet, while the silos leak past the insufficient barriers into the groundwater and eventually, unless stopped, into the Columbia river. I speak of course of Hanford.

[my earlier statements]:

I'm not arguing that we can't have safe nuclear power. I'm arguing that given the potential risks it's simply not worth it.

No nuclear power plant can be designed to be 100% safe--no anything can be.

The risk of potentially poisoning half of the planet means the c factor in hazard x consequences=risk is as close to infinity as you can get on this earth.


IMO bloodless, dispassionate calculations of risk were a factor in getting us in this situation in the first place so passion's not necessarily a bad thing.


Or address the hazard formula as it pertains to something so GD dangerous.[/B]

This last request kind of surprised me.

I guess the other statements have no response from you.

It seems to ask me for a technical response which was something you distrusted,

So you now want to humor my assumed distrust of technical responses? First, there's no such distrust as long as those responses actually address the issue. So far what I've seen from you is a lot of detail that mostly obfuscates the larger issue. In this case, since the consequences of a series of major nuclear accidents, i.e. one happening and adding radiation to the environment while another earlier one is still doing the same, could--COULD--be devastating to life on the planet, there's no acceptable level of hazard.

Say the word and I will trot out the PRAs that I have found during my research.

So your research has covered and found a solution to every potentiality?

I get the distinct impression you have not considered the above-mentioned possibility of multiple accidents, just because they haven't happened (yet). Say FDI goes further south (the huge rise in temps at all four reactors over the last few weeks, the continued releases of radioactive water, the now admitted complete meltdown of the fuel in reactor 1--the only one they've gotten a good look at yet,--etc etc etc, aren't encouraging), then in a couple of years another disaster like this occurs at anyone of the other 50-odd reactors in Japan, and so on. Yes, it's unlikely, but again, when the consequences are so dire...

Need I spell it out in any more detail?

And at least give me credit at this point for not calling you unworthy of being responded to, as you did me earlier.

I will do so if you want me to, but I am reluctant because everything else you have said tells me you would reject the conclusions out of hand.

"Everything else I have said"...once again discrediting my views by absolutizing them.

I'll trust you are capable of comprehending just what poor/bad faith debating that is.

Anyway, there are no doubt many others reading this who would be interested in your calculations, so yes please, give us at least the gist of how you alone have calculated that using radiation to boil water to make electricity, rather than using anyone of many other technologies available--you are continually arguing from a strictly technical POV, so don't now respond "well those others aren't up to speed yet/politically feasible etc." I don't have time or energy to point out the numerous times you try to have it both ways, but I will hold your feet to the nuclear fire on this one point.

Nuclear power is only one area where the scientific capability and the humanitarian impacts are in conflict. Science and its benefits have come with costs.

Again, I'm arguing the costs far outweigh the benefits, and just as importantly that the high risks of nuke power don't justify choosing it over other technologies. Never mind the fact that without billions in subsidies nuke power would never have gotten off the ground, that if those billions had been spent on R&D for cleaner technologies they wouldn't be lagging so far behind, that the extreme centralization of nuke power, and the extreme complexity of the technology creates an in-class, which increases the probability of self-dealing and other forms of corruption, and so on and so on. I'm saying that just the simplest iteration of the risk equation makes nuke power look absolutely unappealing if not crazy.

Prove me wrong.

Nuclear power isn’t perfectly safe but you agreed that nothing is totally safe.

Part of the problem with our dialogue is I make concessions out of politeness while you make none. That was a sloppy statement because as I wrote elsewhere there's no parity of risk between nuclear and other energy-producing technologies.

The decision to run or shutdown power plants is a political question. Again we are on opposite sides of that debate. Both of us can state our opinions and interpret facts and conclusions. If the economics or regulations make operating nuclear plants uneconomic then your side will prevail. If my analysis and conclusions are more persuasive, your side will have to keep fighting.

You're creating, again, a false comparison--only politics/economics on my side, science and hard facts on yours. But, to take the bait, the fact is nuke power is not viable, it has existed with subsidies since day one, and many if not most of it's costs are socialized, say nothing of the costs of it's recurring disasters. It's been pointed out elsewhere on this forum that the hundreds of billions, some say close to a trillion (!) dollars that this one disaster will eventually cost, means TEPCO hasn't made a penny since day one of FDI's operation. And again what if there is another accident like this or two or more before they get this one--if they do--cleaned up?

No. The topic here is supposed to be about TEPCO Management and Government Performance - trying to find information about the decisions and interaction between the utilities and the regulators . It was not intended to be about politics unless that explains why the regulators in Japan didn’t do their job,

The Posting guidelines for PF include the following:

• “Do not hijack an existing thread with off-topic comments or questions--start a new thread.
  
• Any off-topic posts will be deleted or moved to an appropriate forum per administrator or mentor discretion.”

I’m not asking to have your posts deleted, nor am I asking that my posts that you considered out of bounds should be deleted. I definitely don’t want this thread to be locked because we can’t be civil.

You're neither a moderator or the sole arbiter of exactly what the boundaries of this thread's stated topic are. If the moderators think I'm out of bounds, then they can delete my posts and indeed I'll start another thread. Maybe I should have in the first place. Maybe not. Maybe not every statement on either of the non-science threads is cookie-cutter cleanly within boundaries.

I will redouble my efforts to screen out my sarcasm and try to stick to what I know best: facts, figures, calculations, logic, and analytical thinking. That is not a putdown of emotion or compassion or following your heart. It is just not the way I think as an engineer.

Here, once again, you're wedging me into a convenient (for you) box--all heart and passion, no facts. That's a misrepresentation of what I've written. At this point I find it hard to believe this is all misunderstanding on your part and not a series of attempts to discredit me. Not that I care, there are many smart people reading this who can judge what either of us says based on it's actual merits and draw their own conclusions. I'm responding with that audience in mind, merely to move the conversation forward and to save them time (by spending my own).

If I talk about my experience too much, it comes with age.

Sounds like you're saying you have the advantage of age and experience. Exactly how do you have any idea how old I am and what experience I have. It may just be a lot broader than you think, and I may be a bit less wet behind the ears than you are.

It doesn’t mean I’m right about everything. Neither is it trying to make you feel bad about your own experience.

Thanks for making that clear, my lower lip was just starting to tremble.

I would think your issues

I have to take issue with your use of the word issue here.

that we should shutdown

you mean of course shut down

plants all over the world is more appropriate of

you mean of course "appropriate to"

Sorry, but it's not fun being nitpicked at, is it? Do onto others...

the Social Science forum, the General Discussions Politics and World Affairs forum. If you want the discussion to include technical input, there is the sticky “Nuclear Power Thread or the “Other Political Thread.

Finally if you will write up the kinds of things you really want to discuss, start a new thread on this forum.

Finally, a reasonable suggestion. But this:

You are welcome to participate on topic.

is just more large-and-in-charge stuff. Either let the moderators decide how exactly to delineate what's within/outside bounds, or become one yourself.

But, okay, I'm happy to leave this thread alone. Maybe see you on another thread. Meanwhile I really do hope you'll take a harder, better look at what you think is completely naive, insensible, illogical, unreasonable, and unscientific---living without nukes.

 

[rowmag]

Why would there be a need to relocate Tokyo?
I see nothing remotely threatening that city.

A replay of the 1923 earthquake is still expected at any time. Discussions of decentralizing government functions, or having a back-up site, have popped up periodically ever since then. Nothing concrete has ever come of it, though. Be surprised if anything comes of it this time, too.

 

[Drakkith]

Sounds like a good idea to me, anyone else?

If not, then you prefer a world with nuclear weapons?

If there was an option for getting rid of all nukes from all countries forever, I would be in agreement. Unfortunately there isn't. A full explanation would have to go into nuclear deterrence, which I won't get into here.

For your part, you're drawing a false equivalency between the natural and background radiation we've evolved with, and the amounts, which could be many orders of magnitude greater, that we may release if we continue relying on nuke power--I'd say probably will given enough time in light of how much we've already leaked/spilled/tossed into the environment in only a few decades.

According to: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_Annex_B.pdf , the annual individual effective dose from Nuclear Power is 25 microsieverts. (Page 244 in section 2, top right of the page)

The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert per year. So the amount from NPP is way less than the amount from natural background sources.

On page 256 at the bottom left you can find the info on nuclear weapons. In the 200's the average global annual dose due to nuclear weapons atmospheric tests had dropped to 0.005 mSv. So, in both cases the amount delivered to a person is vastly more due to natural sources compared to man made.

Let me then ask you: you consider bio-accumulation of radioactive materials in the food chain leading to ingestion by, eventually, humans, and the resulting mortality and, much worse, resulting genetic mutations, to be just a minor problem, one that doesn't justify getting rid of this technology in favor of others that don't present such dangers?

There aren't any reliable energy sources capable of sustaining the world that are as safe, cheap, and efficient as nuclear power has been so far. Until we make something better I'm all for it.

II Other Technical Issues
Then: has anyone defending nuclear power as no more hazardous to health, overall, than coal, cow dung, what have you, really addressed the elephants in the room: the waste problem, the genetic mutation factor, the half-life issue, the matter of internal radiation, etc?

Yes. Repeatedly. What would you like to know?

There are no long-term solutions yet for storage, and no one can guarantee that any storage site thus selected or under construction (like in Finland) will be 100% secure for 100,000 years. This is the elephant in the room that nuke power supporters seem mostly unwilling to acknowledge.[/B]

I don't consider permanent storage to be a "fire and forget" method. Storage facilities should have routine inspections and if there is enough of a danger to the facility then the waste should be moved.

Is that so? Purely political? No problems on the technical side, like say, the inability to assure that a secure storage site will remain so for 10s of thousands of years if not longer? That's simply not true.

I think he was talking about Carter axing the Reprocessing of fuel, not the storage, unless I misread something.

Like putting it four stories up in an over-stocked SFP next to the ocean in a seismically-active tsunami-prone area. Or in huge silos, filled with millions of gallons of all kinds of radioactive materials, the mixing of which can have synergistic and explosive effects neither entirely understood, yet, nor guarded against--yet, while the silos leak past the insufficient barriers into the groundwater and eventually, unless stopped, into the Columbia river. I speak of course of Hanford.

Issues that should be dealt with, yes.

So you now want to humor my assumed distrust of technical responses? First, there's no such distrust as long as those responses actually address the issue. So far what I've seen from you is a lot of detail that mostly obfuscates the larger issue. In this case, since the consequences of a series of major nuclear accidents, i.e. one happening and adding radiation to the environment while another earlier one is still doing the same, could--COULD--be devastating to life on the planet, there's no acceptable level of hazard.

There isn't enough radioactive material in those power plants to devastate the earth. Not even close. The amount of natural sources FAR exceeds that.

I'm saying that just the simplest iteration of the risk equation makes nuke power look absolutely unappealing if not crazy.

I disagree. I think the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Prove me wrong.

Comparing current evidence on the deaths and injuries from other forms of power production already proves you wrong. However, your question seems to ask that we prove that FUTURE risks don't outweigh the benefits. That is impossible, as no one can see the future. The entire thing is not provable of disprovable for either side.

It's been pointed out elsewhere on this forum that the hundreds of billions, some say close to a trillion (!) dollars that this one disaster will eventually cost, means TEPCO hasn't made a penny since day one of FDI's operation. And again what if there is another accident like this or two or more before they get this one--if they do--cleaned up?

Where is most of this money going to? To take care of the reactors, or to pay people for possible injuries?

But, okay, I'm happy to leave this thread alone. Maybe see you on another thread. Meanwhile I really do hope you'll take a harder, better look at what you think is completely naive, insensible, illogical, unreasonable, and unscientific---living without nukes.

It is all of that because of the way the world works.

 

[NUCENG]

If there was an option for getting rid of all nukes from all countries forever, I would be in agreement. Unfortunately there isn't. A full explanation would have to go into nuclear deterrence, which I won't get into here.



According to: http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_Annex_B.pdf , the annual individual effective dose from Nuclear Power is 25 microsieverts. (Page 244 in section 2, top right of the page)

The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert per year. So the amount from NPP is way less than the amount from natural background sources.

On page 256 at the bottom left you can find the info on nuclear weapons. In the 200's the average global annual dose due to nuclear weapons atmospheric tests had dropped to 0.005 mSv. So, in both cases the amount delivered to a person is vastly more due to natural sources compared to man made.



There aren't any reliable energy sources capable of sustaining the world that are as safe, cheap, and efficient as nuclear power has been so far. Until we make something better I'm all for it.






Yes. Repeatedly. What would you like to know?



I don't consider permanent storage to be a "fire and forget" method. Storage facilities should have routine inspections and if there is enough of a danger to the facility then the waste should be moved.



I think he was talking about Carter axing the Reprocessing of fuel, not the storage, unless I misread something.





Issues that should be dealt with, yes.



There isn't enough radioactive material in those power plants to devastate the earth. Not even close. The amount of natural sources FAR exceeds that.



I disagree. I think the benefits far outweigh the risks.



Comparing current evidence on the deaths and injuries from other forms of power production already proves you wrong. However, your question seems to ask that we prove that FUTURE risks don't outweigh the benefits. That is impossible, as no one can see the future. The entire thing is not provable of disprovable for either side.



Where is most of this money going to? To take care of the reactors, or to pay people for possible injuries?


It is all of that because of the way the world works.

OKay, it is not Fukushima, but it was a government decision to halt reprocessing in the US. So I will respond to this. I stated that President Carter made the decision,. That is historical fact. I said nothing disparaging about him politically. He was the President during the TMI2 accident and you can find pictures of him with his wife at the TMI2 control room shortly after the accident. In the pictures he is wearing a lab coat and anti contamination boots. In the Navy he worked for Admiral Rickover in the Navy nuclear program. He knew about the threats of radiation better than any President before or since. The fact that the French reprocess fuel proves that it is technically feasible. President Carter's appearance at TMI and his decision to halt reprocessing were political decisions reflecting the political feeling in the United States at that time. Whether that decision remains valid today is another matter, but it is still a technical option that would reduce the volume of high level waste requiring storage.

As to geological storage in the United States, the licensing review orf the Yucca Mountain repository was halted by NRC despite a law that designated Yucca Mountain as the national gelogical storage site. Halting that review without Congressional approval seems to violate the law. We do not know whether that review would have resulted in approval of the license for the site. Until there is a technical reason that the site should not be used, the decision to halt the revview is political, not technical.

 

[AntonL]

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110515e10.pdf

Why is it that Tepco take 2 months for this study, surely they new since after the event! It looks like they painting a rosier picture than what is actually happening but reality is overtaking them. Unit 3 even looks worse.

I thought it is the duty for the operator and government to inform the population of the exact state of the plant and possible dangers so that citizens can make independent decision on their future.

 

[NUCENG]

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110515e10.pdf

Why is it that Tepco take 2 months for this study, surely they new since after the event! It looks like they painting a rosier picture than what is actually happening but reality is overtaking them. Unit 3 even looks worse.

I thought it is the duty for the operator and government to inform the population of the exact state of the plant and possible dangers so that citizens can make independent decision on their future.

I am sure their defense is that they were trying to do their duty to prevent panic. So that is a great question for this thread. Where should the government draw the line between openness and public safety? Where were the lines drawn by Japanese Government, Regulators and TEPCO Management.

One aspect that bothers me is that there are a lot of questions about government delays in establishing and expanding the evacuation zones and exclusion zone. That is incompatable with a government protecting the public and only withholding information to keep the evacuations orderly and as safe as possible.

When Japanese regulators took over the primary responsibility for press releases and responding to complaints about TEPCO's inaccuracy and errors, I posted that we would need to see if it made a difference. That has been in place for a while now. Is it the same story with different faces or has accuracy and openness improved?

I know we have Japanese citizens participating in this forum. How does Japanese culture and society view the priority of freedom from fear vs freedom of information?

 

[NUCENG]

For anyone who has been to Japan or worked with Japanese the type of open challenge and rudeness in this story indicates major frustration. They are losing it.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/25/japanese-refuse-to-bow-to-authority/

 

[AntonL]

Nisa published outlines of:

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110526-1-1.pdf" has a nice map summarizing all reactors, storage facilities, fuel manufacturing etc.

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110526-1-2.pdf"

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110526-1-3.pdf"

 

[zapperzero]

I'd be losing it too. The coverup... it's just too much.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/05/tepco-areva-contract-to-treat.html

 

[zapperzero]

One aspect that bothers me is that there are a lot of questions about government delays in establishing and expanding the evacuation zones and exclusion zone. That is incompatable with a government protecting the public and only withholding information to keep the evacuations orderly and as safe as possible.

Surely a stampede out of Tokyo, or Chiba, or even Fukushima City would kill more people than the radiation? I fear that's the official line of thinking. Let the truth trickle out, let people become scared by degrees and leave by degrees. Callous? Yes. Incompatible with protecting the public? Depends on whether you tally your political/social responsibility in megadeaths or no.

The one thing that irks me most is that no-one has released data on just how much radioactive material has escaped to the environment, so far. TEPCO _must_ have measured the plumes. We know they are sampling the water and keeping tally.

 

[NUCENG]

Nisa published outlines of:

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110526-1-1.pdf" has a nice map summarizing all reactors, storage facilities, fuel manufacturing etc.

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110526-1-2.pdf"

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110526-1-3.pdf"

Those are good references. I hadn't seen them before. The last one shows the Prime Minister directing the Fukushima Nuclear Emergency Response and the Foreign support. The org chart doesn't reflect any detail on how that relates to the Utility TEPCO.

I see the media attacking TEPCO, rightfully so, on trust and openness. I thought the government had taken over the responsibility for public information briefings because of all the early information mistakes. Apparently nothing has changed. At face value they appear to be doing everything they can, but they have lost the trust and confidence of their own citizens because of communication issues. That is a failure of leadership.

Issuing orders and directives is one thing. Maybe they did everything they could, but if they don't fix the communications problems, their chances to prevent some rash reaction to this disaster will be lost.

 

[NUCENG]

Surely a stampede out of Tokyo, or Chiba, or even Fukushima City would kill more people than the radiation? I fear that's the official line of thinking. Let the truth trickle out, let people become scared by degrees and leave by degrees. Callous? Yes. Incompatible with protecting the public? Depends on whether you tally your political/social responsibility in megadeaths or no.

The one thing that irks me most is that no-one has released data on just how much radioactive material has escaped to the environment, so far. TEPCO _must_ have measured the plumes. We know they are sampling the water and keeping tally.

Yes panic can kill, but to ignore the measurements, and delay actions that have been planned and approved based on protecting the health of the public, seems to invite charges of violating trust and abrogating responsibility. Were the evacuation plans just paper to meet a requirement and then be ignored in a real event? And the next time a nuclear plant has even a small event will there be more or less panic?

As to total releases, we know three cores are severely damaged. Are the cores inside the vessels or are they in the containments? How badly damaged are the containments? We have seen pictures of the fuel in the pool at unit 4. Nobody has seen the fuel in the other pools so their damage can only be guessed. The IAEA has given up on the estimations of radiation dispersal because it doesn't match reality. I don't think they actually know how much has been released any more than anyone knows exactly how much was released at Chernobyl or TMI2. There are estimates and over time they can be improved. In the meantime you evacuate, test agricultural products, survey the environment, and base decisions on where the contamination IS.