News Can the nuclear industry be trusted?

[nismaratwork]

Treading warily, am I read into this Nisamratwork, that you have had a road to Damascus style change of heart to the view not only that nuclear power generation is not safe, but that the nuclear power generation industry is inherently dishonest in its dealings with the public? From the links you have provided, I am failing to find the basis for that.

No, I can't claim such a conversion, and I can only speak to TEPCO's safety record, which from what I have seen is uniquely abysmal and criminal. The video doctoring incident, and their many other spills, leaks, and other "whoopsies" over the last decade+ is pretty disheartening.

As a whole, I wouldn't trust an industry that considers this some kind of norm, or doesn't react violently (metaphorically) to that level of deceptive practice.

Beyond that, I have never seen nuclear power as safe, I see it as safer than COAL/LNG. I would say that's still absolutely true, but I'm no longer convinced the dichotomy is so simple or...well... dichotomous. In that, I've had my RtD moment, yes, but not quite so grand as to deserve the appellation even in jest. I'd also say that my belief in nuclear is founded on a fundamental lack of hope in other options; I'm convinced that they exist, but not that we'll implement them.

So... self-defeating there, but I guess you could say I've converted from monotheism to monolatrism.

 

[Ken Natton]

I don’t entirely share your view nismar, but I do respect it and accept that you probably have as much valid basis for your view as I do for mine. I would have to say, and I do not direct this at you particularly nismar, that I find no evidence whatever that you or I or any of the Japanese people local to the disaster have been in any way misled about what is happening. My conspiracy theory sensors are twitching.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don’t entirely share your view nismar, but I do respect it and accept that you probably have as much valid basis for your view as I do for mine. I would have to say, and I do not direct this at you particularly nismar, that I find no evidence whatever that you or I or any of the Japanese people local to the disaster have been in any way misled about what is happening. My conspiracy theory sensors are twitching.

Oh, I can't see that they've been misled either, but judging by TEPCO's recent history in the area, I'd be more surprised that not to see that they haven't been. Still, I think we all know those answers come AFTER they deal with Fukishimi-Daichi, not during.

The altered video is not conspiratorial (it's also not around this incident), except insofar as it's a very minor and failed conspiracy itself.

I realize that this is a HARD-Left source, but it's not agenda-based, just a good summation of TEPCO:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/rachel-maddow-japan-nuclear-2

http://www.asiantribune.com/toshibas-malfeasance-tepco

http://www.japansubculture.com/2011/03/tepco-executives-quietly-under-investigation-for-charges-of-professional-negligence-resulting-in-death-or-injury-%EF%BC%88%E6%A5%AD%E5%8B%99%E4%B8%8A%E9%81%8E%E5%A4%B1%E8%87%B4%E6%AD%BB%E5%82%B7/

I suspect that Astronuc could point me to a better publication than the results of a google search, but the history here is not exactly a secret.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/27/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?iref=NS1

Tokyo (CNN) -- Radiation levels in pooled water tested in the No. 2 nuclear reactor's turbine building at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant are 10 million times above normal, utility company and government officials said Sunday.

Hidehiko Nishiyama, an official with Japan's nuclear and industrial safety agency, said the surface water showed 1,000 millisieverts of radiation. By comparison, an individual in a developed country is naturally exposed to 3 millisieverts per year, though Japan's health ministry has set a 250 millisievert per year cumulative limit before workers must leave the plant.

The 10-million-times normal reading applies to radioactive iodine-134 found in the No. 2 building's pooled water, according to the nuclear safety agency. This isotope loses half its radioactive atoms every 53 minutes, compared to a half-life of every eight days for radioactive iodine-131 that has also been detected in recent days.

This exponentially dwindling amount of radiation means, according to Nishiyama, that it's unlikely that sealife -- and, several steps down the line, humans who might eat once contaminated seafood -- will suffer greatly from the iodine-134 exposure.

"Certainly, we have to be concerned about the fact that the level of radiation is increasing," said Nishiyama. "But at this point, we do not ... envisage negative health impacts."

There was no indication either of harm done to the two people working in and around the No. 2 reactor when the test result became known. Those two subsequently left, and work in the turbine building has stopped until the government signs off on the power company's plan to address the issue, according to an official with the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the plant.

That said, a Tokyo Electric official noted Sunday that people continued to work in other buildings -- including a control room, which got power and light for the first time in weeks the previous afternoon -- in the No. 2 reactor's complex.

Bolding mine, in case people skim and think it's 10M X outside of the reactor pool.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Read more carefully, and you'll see that it is one short-lived isotope whose concentration is "10 million x normal". "Normal" is close to zero, which is why we have it locked up.

I see that CNN is comparing mSv and mSv/year as if they were the same unit.

 

[Al68]

I realize that this is a HARD-Left source, but it's not agenda-based, just a good summation of TEPCO:

http://www.politicususa.com/en/rachel-maddow-japan-nuclear-2

You think so:

"The carcinogenic isotopes that are released at Fukushima are already floating to Seattle with effects we simply cannot measure."

It's an anti-nuke propaganda piece, not a "good summation of TEPCO". TEPCO might be horrible, but the fact that wacko lefties hate them goes in their plus column.

 

[Al68]

Read more carefully, and you'll see that it is one short-lived isotope whose concentration is "10 million x normal". "Normal" is close to zero, which is why we have it locked up.

I see that CNN is comparing mSv and mSv/year as if they were the same unit.

That's only the tip of the iceberg for the nonsensical information being reported. "The surface water showed 1,000 millisieverts of radiation" is gibberish. It would be nice to see a report written by someone who has a clue what they're talking about.

 

[NeoDevin]

"The carcinogenic isotopes that are released at Fukushima are already floating to Seattle with effects we simply cannot measure."

I would say that statement is accurate. They cannot measure the effects because there are no effects.

 

[nismaratwork]

Wow... at what point did a statement about radiation confined to a reactor vessel have ANY implications for Seattle?

Are you telling me that people in freaking Washington are worried?

 

[nismaratwork]

Read more carefully, and you'll see that it is one short-lived isotope whose concentration is "10 million x normal". "Normal" is close to zero, which is why we have it locked up.

I see that CNN is comparing mSv and mSv/year as if they were the same unit.

Well it's not locked up at all of course, that's the point, but the point is also that due to the short half life and relatively benign 'daughters' these isotopes don't pose a risk to sea-life and the food chain.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/27/japan.nuclear.status/index.html?hpt=T2

...And now the retraction. Note, it's not CNN doing this, it's TEPCO officials... and frankly there need be no deception to render such poor information sharing. So no, they can't be trusted, but not necessarily becaue they lie or cheat, although TEPCO certainly has done that in the past.

It seems to me that this is a case of not having a really good idea of just what the hell is going on, and before they can catch up, the situation has changed.

 

[Ken Natton]

I don’t know here, I’m concerned that this becomes too much of an ego issue. There are legitimate concerns about what is happening in Fukushima, of course there are. I do recall seeing a TV program in the UK that was actually about something totally unrelated, but they took a core sample from the bottom of Lake Windemere, which is one of the UK’s premier beauty spots. An expert was discussing the core sample and with a totally throw away line pointed to a particular mark in the soil which he positively identified as 1985. The program presenter was naturally fairly sceptical about how the expert could be so positive. The expert replied with one word. Chernobyl. More obviously, I do remember that there were sheep framers in Wales who had to slaughter whole flocks because the radiation levels in the sheep were detected as too high. The sheep had been contaminated simply from eating the grass. I don’t know exactly how far Wales is from Chernobyl but it is certainly more than a thousand miles.

But it is also a truth that another legacy of Chernobyl has been a questioning of the whole conventional wisdom about the effects of radiation contamination. No people now live in the environs of Chernobyl, but it has been pointed out that wildlife does and with no obvious ill effects. Again, I am not downplaying the tragedy of the childhood thyroid cancers in Ukraine and Belarus that are fairly undeniably consequences of Chernobyl. And doubtless, if I was a resident of Tokyo I would probably be packing my children on the train south as well.

But government agencies have a duty to act carefully in these situations. I think there was a time in the past when, primarily from a very patronising motivation to protect the public from the worst, governments might have been prepared to disguise some part of the truth. But they soon learned the lesson that such a course only served to feed conspiracy theories. These days, I believe that there is broad acceptance of the need to put the truth out there, however awful it may be. But there is also a legitimate concern not to generate unnecessary fear. There is an equal need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and it is a difficult line to walk.

If what is happening in Fukushima is causing your brow to furrow then it should. But it is not helpful to anyone to respond with melodrama. Nor yet are we anywhere near the point of doubting the whole rational behind nuclear power generation. Not rationally anyway.

 

[JaredJames]

More obviously, I do remember that there were sheep framers in Wales who had to slaughter whole flocks because the radiation levels in the sheep were detected as too high. The sheep had been contaminated simply from eating the grass. I don’t know exactly how far Wales is from Chernobyl but it is certainly more than a thousand miles.

A touch off topic, but are you sure it was Wales? I was under the impression Scotland took the brunt of it and had the problems.

 

[Ken Natton]

A touch off topic, but are you sure it was Wales? I was under the impression Scotland took the brunt of it and had the problems.

My memory is Wales, but I'm not sure it is important to the point.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don’t know here, I’m concerned that this becomes too much of an ego issue. There are legitimate concerns about what is happening in Fukushima, of course there are. I do recall seeing a TV program in the UK that was actually about something totally unrelated, but they took a core sample from the bottom of Lake Windemere, which is one of the UK’s premier beauty spots. An expert was discussing the core sample and with a totally throw away line pointed to a particular mark in the soil which he positively identified as 1985. The program presenter was naturally fairly sceptical about how the expert could be so positive. The expert replied with one word. Chernobyl. More obviously, I do remember that there were sheep framers in Wales who had to slaughter whole flocks because the radiation levels in the sheep were detected as too high. The sheep had been contaminated simply from eating the grass. I don’t know exactly how far Wales is from Chernobyl but it is certainly more than a thousand miles.

But it is also a truth that another legacy of Chernobyl has been a questioning of the whole conventional wisdom about the effects of radiation contamination. No people now live in the environs of Chernobyl, but it has been pointed out that wildlife does and with no obvious ill effects. Again, I am not downplaying the tragedy of the childhood thyroid cancers in Ukraine and Belarus that are fairly undeniably consequences of Chernobyl. And doubtless, if I was a resident of Tokyo I would probably be packing my children on the train south as well.

But government agencies have a duty to act carefully in these situations. I think there was a time in the past when, primarily from a very patronising motivation to protect the public from the worst, governments might have been prepared to disguise some part of the truth. But they soon learned the lesson that such a course only served to feed conspiracy theories. These days, I believe that there is broad acceptance of the need to put the truth out there, however awful it may be. But there is also a legitimate concern not to generate unnecessary fear. There is an equal need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and it is a difficult line to walk.

If what is happening in Fukushima is causing your brow to furrow then it should. But it is not helpful to anyone to respond with melodrama. Nor yet are we anywhere near the point of doubting the whole rational behind nuclear power generation. Not rationally anyway.

The best rational for nuclear power without the ideal of conquering NIMBYism, and a lack of secure central waste storage is that even with the far-flung effects of something like Chernobyl, the total death and injury related to Chernobyl in total is less than those from coal in a YEAR.

That said, if there are better alternatives to both that are simply underfunded due to greed and oil/coal interests, then it changes the risk-reward scenario. I don't agree with Ivan that it means Nuke has no place, but given the time frame involved in building new reactors and getting senators to agree is probably longer than the time involved in implementing algael/bacterial fuel, more solar, wind, and capacity to store in the grid.

Is it a reason to wet one's self? No.

 

[cobalt124]

A touch off topic, but are you sure it was Wales? I was under the impression Scotland took the brunt of it and had the problems.

My memory is Wales, but I'm not sure it is important to the point.

I thought it was somewhere inbetween - The Lake District.

 

[JaredJames]

I thought it was somewhere inbetween - The Lake District.

Just checked, it's mainly North Wales and above.

 

[nismaratwork]

Man, Wales really takes it in the trousers sometimes don't they? Hoof and Mouth, radiation, coal mining... a lack of respect for the ecstasy that is lava bread and cockles.

Then again there's the Welsh language, which I'm convinced is a prank. Wffyywyffyd my butt!

 

[JaredJames]

Man, Wales really takes it in the trousers sometimes don't they? Hoof and Mouth, radiation, coal mining... a lack of respect for the ecstasy that is lava bread and cockles.

Then again there's the Welsh language, which I'm convinced is a prank. Wffyywyffyd my butt!

But we had the worlds first million pound cheque (77 mil today)! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange)

 

[nismaratwork]

But we had the worlds first million pound cheque (77 mil today)! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange)

Well, that calls for a round of Fyydwid and Wyfyfyffyfyfyfy!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That said, if there are better alternatives to both that are simply underfunded due to greed and oil/coal interests, then it changes the risk-reward scenario. I don't agree with Ivan that it means Nuke has no place, but given the time frame involved in building new reactors and getting senators to agree is probably longer than the time involved in implementing algael/bacterial fuel, more solar, wind, and capacity to store in the grid.

Is it a reason to wet one's self? No.

I think this is a key point. Nuclear power is not an immediate solution. By the time it could be implemented, better options will be available.

As I understand things, it can take a decade to build a new plant; and perhaps another decade to get approval and funding. It will take decades for nuclear power to play a significant role beyond the one it has today. With the promise of biofuel options and the price of solar dropping like a rock, I think we are worried about saving the horse when Model-Ts are already on the market.

 

[JaredJames]

I think this is a key point. Nuclear power is not an immediate solution. By the time it could be implemented, better options will be available.

As I understand things, it can take a decade to build a new plant; and perhaps another decade to get approval and funding. It will take decades for nuclear power to play a significant role beyond the one it has today. With the promise of biofuel options and the price of solar dropping like a rock, I think we are worried about saving the horse when Model-Ts are already on the market.

Will be or may be? I don't see how anyone could make such a guarantee.

Do we take a chance these are ready and in useable states or do we just go with what we know can provide a solution?

At best I'd say we can certainly make a prediction, perhaps balance the costs and predicted time scales.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Will be or may be? I don't see how anyone could make such a guarantee.

Do we take a chance these are ready and in useable states or do we just go with what we know can provide a solution?

At best I'd say we can certainly make a prediction, perhaps balance the costs and predicted time scales.

We could be running on algae fuel today. It is only a matter of price. Even the small-timers are producing fuel at about $8 a gallon. And I can tell you that until recently, in spite of the fact that it has been around since the 70s, the effort to develop this technology was a joke. Why? Because we haven't gotten serious about alternatives. Many involved are way out of their league. Give Exxon another five years and it should be doable at a reasonable price. Even DARPA expects to grow algae in the battlefield and produce fuel for $3 a gallon.

What worries me is that without a clearly stated national agenda, Exxon has no incentive to rush the progress. They will play this by the numbers. As long as we ignore the real price oil, they have no incentive to hurry. This has been one of my greatest disappoinments with Obama: I had hoped for much more emphasis on alternative fuels.

The price of solar is dropping quickly NOW. Thin-film cells effectively produced by printers are in the works now.

If people would weren't constantly preaching the message of hopelessness and ignoring the REAL price of oil and other options like nuclear, we would be done by now.

For what it's worth, I put my money where my mouth is. I dedicated thirty months of my life to this in hopes of helping the cause. In the end, it was clear that this challenge is just too big for anyone but the Exxons and the DoD. The development costs are probably in the $billions range.

 

[russ_watters]

Operating something in quantities orders of magnitude smaller than what is required to provide a viable replacement for a current base load power source is not ready now. You must be aware that people have been making such 'almost ready, just needs a little more reseach' predictions for decades, right?

What your suggestion amounts to is a gamble that these technologies will become viable if we put a ton more money into researching and developing them. But instead of just researching, we could actually be building nuclear power plants.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think this is a key point. Nuclear power is not an immediate solution. By the time it could be implemented, better options will be available.

As I understand things, it can take a decade to build a new plant; and perhaps another decade to get approval and funding. It will take decades for nuclear power to play a significant role beyond the one it has today. With the promise of biofuel options and the price of solar dropping like a rock, I think we are worried about saving the horse when Model-Ts are already on the market.

Well, you know that I hope you're right, but JnJ makes a good case too: hope for the best (and fund it), but plan for the worst... we simply cannot keep up with coal the way we are, and carbon storage makes me break out in a cold sweat.

@russ_waters: Both approaches are gambles, so why not defund "clean coal" which is a load anyway, kill offshore drilling and divert funding to biofuels and reforming the nuclear industry. Go Gen IV, PBR's and centralized secure storage; make both a national security issue.

The biofuel is clearly a matter of national security, as it could mean freedom from fossile fuels as a major source of car-juice. The ability to export this would also be potentially a serious matter.

Nuclear is clearly a matter of national security for more reasons than can be listed, and too important to leave to whining NIMBY senators.

 

[russ_watters]

@russ_waters: Both approaches are gambles, so why not defund "clean coal" which is a load anyway, kill offshore drilling and divert funding to biofuels and reforming the nuclear industry. Go Gen IV, PBR's and centralized secure storage; make both a national security issue.

Well sure, everything is a bet. But if you bet that biofuel won't be viable and instead you fund nuclear power, get a clean, domestic, high capacity power source and a clear path toward phasing out coal whether you "win" or "lose".

 

[BobG]

But government agencies have a duty to act carefully in these situations. I think there was a time in the past when, primarily from a very patronising motivation to protect the public from the worst, governments might have been prepared to disguise some part of the truth. But they soon learned the lesson that such a course only served to feed conspiracy theories. These days, I believe that there is broad acceptance of the need to put the truth out there, however awful it may be. But there is also a legitimate concern not to generate unnecessary fear. There is an equal need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and it is a difficult line to walk.

For the government, as long as the information is true, then any concerns about generating unnecessary fear should be pretty minor. Given accurate information in a timely fashion, then panic is rare. For example, informing people that a tsunami could be arriving, possibly within minutes, would be more likely to generate panic than informing people that a nuclear reactor is leaking and emitting radiation that will probably reach the city in some form, but the government still notifies the public of the anticipated tsunami.

For the company, there's secondary concerns. Releasing accurate and timely information could generate long term fear, not only of the company involved, but the industry as a whole. It's only the company responsible for the leak that feels a need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and its primarily their own self interest that they're considering; not the public. It's that known conflict of interest that generates an overall distrust of nuclear power companies response to problems with their reactors.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well sure, everything is a bet. But if you bet that biofuel won't be viable and instead you fund nuclear power, get a clean, domestic, high capacity power source and a clear path toward phasing out coal whether you "win" or "lose".

By that logic it would be wise to fund both, and in fact a much wider array of technologies by orders of magnitude along with scaling up nuclear as a source of energy and a viable technological commodity. Think Roullette... you don't bet on one number, one color... it's a mix of bets according to a combination of luck, taste, and raw odds. In this case, coal is a clear failure, nuclear carries an extreme of tremendous risk (imagine a Chernobyl in which the molten core hits the water table, KABOOM) at the margins, and manageable risk in the center, and biofuel has VAST potential and low loooooow risk, but it's criminally underfunded.

This strikes me as a gamble taken by oil and coal lobbies to make as much money gibbing the planet, and THEN turning to 'alternatives'.

 

[JaredJames]

By that logic it would be wise to fund both, and in fact a much wider array of technologies by orders of magnitude along with scaling up nuclear as a source of energy and a viable technological commodity. Think Roullette... you don't bet on one number, one color... it's a mix of bets according to a combination of luck, taste, and raw odds. In this case, coal is a clear failure, nuclear carries an extreme of tremendous risk (imagine a Chernobyl in which the molten core hits the water table, KABOOM) at the margins, and manageable risk in the center, and biofuel has VAST potential and low loooooow risk, but it's criminally underfunded.

That is rather bias for my liking. Destroy two and praise the other.

The facts on the table are simple, coal is not sustainable (obviously). Nuclear can provide our requirements - and if done correctly it can be done in a safe manner (getting that safety is another issue, personally I think military run and protected for a start). Alternatives, great ideas and I think we should fund them, but they aren't a viable solution at the moment unless we do a lot of work and invest a heck of a lot.

So, my personal opinion on this is that we should be building nuclear reactors to handle our demands and replace coal/oil/gas, but also invest in alternatives so that we can get them to the point of being viable.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is rather bias for my liking. Destroy two and praise the other.

The facts on the table are simple, coal is not sustainable (obviously). Nuclear can provide our requirements - and if done correctly it can be done in a safe manner (getting that safety is another issue, personally I think military run and protected for a start). Alternatives, great ideas and I think we should fund them, but they aren't a viable solution at the moment unless we do a lot of work and invest a heck of a lot.

So, my personal opinion on this is that we should be building nuclear reactors to handle our demands and replace coal/oil/gas, but also invest in alternatives so that we can get them to the point of being viable.

Yep, it seems like the logical course of action... really the ONLY course of action if we expect to avoid catastrophe. I'd love to hear apeiron's thinking on this...