The more political thread besides Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants scientific one

  • Thread starter jlduh
  • Start date
  • #736
zapperzero
1,045
2
It was to be expected. It's also very, very unjust. There were clearly bad decisions made, those decisions clearly led to huge amounts of property damage and not a few indirect deaths (elderly&sick evacuees mostly).
 
  • #737
I agree that it's probably what happened!

But then again, is this consistent with the conclusion: it "cannot be considered socially irresponsible behavior"?

How can it be the wise decision of the prosecutors?

I am more interested in "how we can fix the system so that it (such bad managerial decisions) doesn't happen in the future?"

Note that it is not so that all TEPCO managers are bad people. The problem is that "good" managers, which push for more expenses, have worse career prospects, IOW they don't reach higher levels on the corporate ladder. (This isn't uniquely TEPCO or Japanese problem, by the way).

Because of this dynamics, the problem can't be fixed by installing "better" managers.

Only competent independent oversight agency with power to force nuclear operators to implement safety measures can help here.
 
  • #738
jlduh
468
0
NHK World has removed its "Data On Fukushima plant" link from first page, saw it yet at the end of August... Probably a side effect of the Olympic games strategy?


You have now to click "311 Beyond stories of recovery" (nice!) logo and then the link to the "data on Fukushima plant" appears on the right:


http://www.nhk.or.jp/japan311/

But anyway, the page is no more updated since end of May 2013!

http://www9.nhk.or.jp/kabun-blog/500/

Which is pretty normal in fact: japanese are no more concerned by the nuclear problem, and Japan seems to be today the safiest place in the world to be if you fear radiations, just look at this nice updated "Radiation Map" that is now above the "Data on Fukushima Plant" link!

http://www.nhk.or.jp/japan311/311-nuclear.html [Broken]

Great numbers, all lower than in the rest of the international towns listed. Message is clear: don't worry anymore...

I reference this here because my feeling is that the decommissioning of the information will be a more effective (and easy) task than the decommissioning of the real stuff...

A step by step process.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #739
jlduh
468
0
Well, what to say to this kind of article?

http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

Some "nuclear people" should consider how to stay credible after that kind of event. I saw a lot of them sincerely reconsidering their position after the "impossible" Fukushima accident, accepting to revise some of their positions. This article shows that it's not true for everyone. Not a surprise, in fact.
 
  • #740
russ_watters
Mentor
21,942
8,979
Well, what to say to this kind of article?

http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

Some "nuclear people" should consider how to stay credible after that kind of event. I saw a lot of them sincerely reconsidering their position after the "impossible" Fukushima accident, accepting to revise some of their positions. This article shows that it's not true for everyone. Not a surprise, in fact.
Though somewhat egaggerated in wording, it is nevertheless factually accurate, though with two minor caveats:
1. Evacuations are at least temporarily depriving people of property.
2. It will probably eventually kill some people.

But I wholeheartedly agree with him that people have lost perspective and let hysteria take them over when they talk like the nuclear "disaster" was the biggest/worst part of what the earthquake caused.
 
  • #741
jlduh
468
0
Though somewhat egaggerated in wording, it is nevertheless factually accurate, though with two minor caveats:
1. Evacuations are at least temporarily depriving people of property.
2. It will probably eventually kill some people.

But I wholeheartedly agree with him that people have lost perspective and let hysteria take them over when they talk like the nuclear "disaster" was the biggest/worst part of what the earthquake caused.



Well, comparing a technological "disaster" or "accident" (as you want) to a natural disaster is somewhat a flawed way to represent things. We all know that natural disasters can be terrible in numbers of victims, and especially in a short amount of time: this tsunami was terrible, yes , and killed many people (around 16000 deaths), and for example the tsunami that hit Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India in 2004 was 15 times even worse (around 235 000 dead people).

BUT, this doesn't mean ANYTHING when you start to talk about a nuclear accident like Fukushima, because:

1- we talk about a technological accident caused by a natural disaster, and not a natural disaster itself
2- this accident/disaster is the result of human technological choices/decisions/designs facing a natural disaster
3- the consequences of this accident are NOT assessable only in terms of "number of people killed in a short amount of time". The consequences are and will be for a long long loooooooong time (on the scale of a human life) way more various and wider for the people than just : "killed or not killed by radiations". I hope that i don't need to develop this point...

Something else has to be added to this: the Fukushima accident is a "lucky accident" in a certain way. A lot of luck has played a role to make it "smaller" (relatively!) than it could have been. Many experts agreed about this fact, because:

- when you are in a situation like that, with a total loss of power with no more backups on the nuclear plant, which is a scenario which was not even considered as possible by designers and engineers ("beyond design basis", as they say), with heavy hydrogen explosions resulting from this out of control situation,

- when you consider that in this scenario, nothing was designed to secure spent fuel from being ejected from top pools and/or being exposed to air after leaks from the pools damaged from explosions (which didn't happen BY CHANCE, and ONLY BY CHANCE)

- when you imagine a very very very possible scenario where exposed fuel to air creates heavy radiations, that can be even increased by criticality created by ejected fuel laying on the ground with no moderation or water on it (again this didn't happen by CHANCE, not by design, as design was not even daring considering this scenario!)

- when you imagine the direct consequence of this: total impossibility to approach the site to try to regain some control over the situation (no more injection of water in reactor buildings and remaining pools, etc.), and so a plant with tons of spent fuel and 6 reactors left to themselves with no power on site

then you can imagine what would have been the situation in Japan: a large area totally out of human control for sufficient time to create a situation where other plants around (like Daini; only 12 kms away from Daiichi!) would need to evacuate also (this is no science fiction, this was very close to be reality if any criticality and/or heavy radiation was released because of this "no human present" situation), i let you imagine the consequences for Japan and not only for Japan in this development of events in domino effects.

Again, this didn't happen but only by CHANCE, not by intentional design in any way.

When you consider this, you are a bit shocked by that kind of article. Yes tsunami killed MUCH MORE people than radiations so far. SO WHAT? The potential for making Japan a no man's land was real in the scenario i describe above, and again, this is no absurd science fiction, nor "hysteria", it is fiction, yes, but based on scientific facts that are difficult to negate: a totally out of power nuclear plant is not able by design to stabilize itself, and especially with no human left, if human had to leave because of too high radiations. Can you negate the fact that this domino effect was very possible based on the situation we had the 3/11?

By the way, I personnaly consider that based on the current situation on site, this scenario is still possible, considering the time during which the plant will be vulnerable to new natural disasters for example (new earthquakes, new tsunamis, heavy typhoons, etc.), and less than efficient management and manpower in very difficult working conditions...

So please, Mister KELMM, be a bit modest in the way you treat facts. You are maybe "factually" right, but you lack honesty and modesty, considering that:

- the goal of humans is not to be worse than nature when creating disaster,
- in this specific case, humans could have beaten nature. It was very very close to, with a bit of luck missing...
 
Last edited:
  • #742
tsutsuji
Gold Member
1,219
15
South Korea :

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/artic...le-back-reliance-nuclear-power-wake-fukushima (14 October 2013)

Nuclear energy should account for between 22 per cent and 29 per cent of power generation capacity by 2035, compared with a 41 per cent goal introduced in the previous long-term plan in 2008, South Korea's energy ministry said.
(...)
The government last week promised tighter regulation of the nuclear industry after indicting 100 officials on corruption and bribery charges relating to the use of components with faked quality-control certificates.

The probe found 277 faked certificates for parts used in 20 operating reactors as well as 2,010 false documents at eight plants that were offline or under construction, according to the government.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #743
russ_watters
Mentor
21,942
8,979
jlduh said:
Fukushima accident is a "lucky accident" in a certain way. A lot of luck has played a role to make it "smaller" (relatively) than it could have been.

...which is a scenario which was not even considered as possible by designers and engineers...
Sure, but no possible additional bad luck can trump the bad luck that caused the accident, right? That would be the bad luck of having one of the worst earthquakes and worst tsunamis in recorded history so near the plant. And in addition to ignoring the bad luck that caused the accident, you are also trivializing the engineering that contributed to the "good" luck that limited it. In engineering, part of the point of a "safety factor" is extra strength to deal with problems you don't think of - because enginers know they can't think of everything. But either way, you don't get to score "maybes" and "almosts" on your scorecard. If you did, you wouldn't be putting Fukushima (or Chernobyl or TMI) on your scorecard at all!

Like the author, I agree that this accident shows just how safe nuclear power is, not how unsafe: given a natural disaster way outside the bounds of what was anticipated, the plant did little damage beyond what it did to itself.
-the goal of humans is not to be worse than nature when creating disaster.
I think you mean "no worse". Anyway, the author never makes such a claim. You can't fault him for something he didn't say. All he's saying is that he is of the perception that - based on the attention each are given - the media and many in the public consider Fukushima to be the worst result of the earthquake/tsunami.
 
  • #744
LabratSR
193
19
Well, what to say to this kind of article?

http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

Some "nuclear people" should consider how to stay credible after that kind of event. I saw a lot of them sincerely reconsidering their position after the "impossible" Fukushima accident, accepting to revise some of their positions. This article shows that it's not true for everyone. Not a surprise, in fact.

Ex-Skf's reply

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2013/10/fukushima-i-npp-accident-was-nuclear.html
 
  • #745
jlduh
468
0
The french newspaper Le Monde (considered as "moderate" and balanced in France) just published an article about the workers of Fukushima, the french version is here:

http://www.lemonde.fr/japon/article...l-enfer-des-liquidateurs_3493382_1492975.html

A less than perfect translation by Google, but better than nothing for those who don't understand french language:

http://translate.google.fr/translat...l-enfer-des-liquidateurs_3493382_1492975.html

Almost the same music from an article about the current morale and organisation of the workers on Daiichi site, from the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/15/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant-cleanup

"I'm particularly worried about depression and alcoholism," said Takeshi Tanigawa, a professor in the department of public health at Ehime University in western Japan. "I've seen high levels of physical distress and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder."

Many of the casual labourers employed by subcontractors live in cheap accommodation in places such as Yumoto, a hot-spring resort south of the exclusion zone around the plant. The number of workers has declined in the past year amid complaints from hoteliers and inn-keepers about drink-fuelled fights. These days, more seem to prefer the bars and commercial sex establishments of nearby Onahama port.

A 42-year-old contract worker, who asked not be named, confirmed that alcohol abuse had become a problem among workers. "Lots of men I know drink heavily in the evening and come to work with the shakes the next day. I know of several who worked with hangovers during the summer and collapsed with heatstroke."

In the long term, Tepco and its partner companies will struggle to find enough people with specialist knowledge to see decommissioning through to the end, according to Yukiteru Naka, a retired engineer with General Electric who helped build some of Fukushima Daiichi's reactors.

"There aren't enough trained people at Fukushima Daiichi even now," he said. "For Tepco, money is the top priority – nuclear technology and safety come second and third. That's why the accident happened. The management insists on keeping the company going. They think about shareholders, bank lenders and the government, but not the people of Fukushima."

Naka, who runs a firm in Iwaki, just south of Fukushima Daiichi, that provides technical assistance to Tepco, said the lack of expertise afflicts the utility and general contractors with a pivotal role in the cleanup.

"Most of their employees have no experience of working in conditions like these, and all the time their exposure to radiation is increasing," he said. "I suggested to Tepco that it bring in retired workers who said they were willing to help, but the management refused."

"Tepco is spending its money on fixing the technical problems, but it also needs people to carry out that work. I'm very worried about the labour shortage. If they don't do something about it soon, the employment system at Fukushima Daiichi will collapse first, not the plant."

"The real work at Fukushima Daiichi is being done by the general contractors, with the smaller companies picking up the crumbs," Yoshikawa said. "They outbid each other for contracts and so end up with less money to pay their workers. They have no choice but to hire cheap labour."
 
Last edited:
  • #746
jlduh
468
0
In engineering, part of the point of a "safety factor" is extra strength to deal with problems you don't think of - because enginers know they can't think of everything.

Hi again Russ, i agree with you on this matter (I'm an engineer!) and i have to add that engineers are even better when they openly and honestly recognize that "they can't think about everything" ;o)

Now, back to the "safety factor". I agree that this is part of intelligent design, but of course the "wise amount of safety factor" is by definition something very difficult to assess from scratch, and in reality, the errors and accidents are big contributors to weight the amount of safety factor to put in a specific -future or improved- design. No doubt that some additional safety factors -and new scenarios considered as impossible until now!- will be added in the future (i hope!) by nuclear engineers.

But never forget that safety factors cost money, and that money is what ultimately drives companies like Tepco or others. Companies are not only made by engineers, financial guys (defending the interest of shareholders of course) are often the one who ultimately decide, you know that like me.

But you must admit that, considering the root cause of the accident (total loss of main and backup power because of earthquake and tsunami), it seems that Tepco put a lot of energy to also include an "unsafety factor" in the design of the Daiichi plant, as i mention it here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4497672&postcount=733

So 6.4m design instead of 15m real wave (and not reconsidering it after they even imagined it in 2008) seems to be the definition of what i call a "2.34 unsafety factor"...

Saying that "safety factors" avoided a much worse scenario once the accident initiated (avoiding the domino effect that i mention) imply to recognize also that a big unsafety factor (with no willingness to correct it when it was considered this could happen) initiated the accident.

Alternatively if you say that bad luck initiated the accident, then you have to say that good luck avoided to make it much worse! But it's difficult to say that, on one hand, the bad luck initiated the accident, but that on the other hand, intelligent safety factors avoided to make it a complete nightmare in case of domino effects scenario (scenario which i think you recognize could have been, and was not far from being in fact, plausible and possible?)

Safety factors exists, unsafety factors also, let's recognize them BOTH in the Fukushima case. Or bad luck and good luck... if you prefer? But not one in one case (the root cause) and the other in the other case (the development of the accident). This wouldn't be balanced in my mind...
 
Last edited:
  • #747
jlduh
468
0
All he's saying is that he is of the perception that - based on the attention each are given - the media and many in the public consider Fukushima to be the worst result of the earthquake/tsunami.

I still wanted to respond to this point from your post. Again, if the perception of public and media is like that, there are some reasons, whether you will find them good or bad. In my opinion, some are related to some kind of psychology, and some are facts related.

1- The tsunami is quick and as a natural disaster, only little can be done against it: it happens so violently that everyone is shocked and then of course sad for the death of so many citizens, friends, family members. After the shock, what stays in mind is sadness, but not fear.

2- On the other hand, the nuclear accident is not so shocking at first (some explosions are not visually so shocking than the images of this gigantic wave) BUT it creates of course a climate of deep fear among people because nuclear stuff is frightening (more on this below) and also because that's an ongoing situation that has to be managed by humans for the next years/decades with anxiety created by all the risks that stay present like a "Damoclès sword" (not sure about the english translation of this french expression!) over the head of Japanese. Japanese, but not only japanese. There are more than 500 reactors in the world, people can imagine better with Tchernobyl or Fukushima accidents what would happen to their families if such an accident would happen in the reactor next to them. That's why in global opinion, this nuclear accident is frightening for a lot of people, and medias reflect this.

3- This perception is increased by two factors:

3.1 After Tchernobyl, everybody (experts and politicians mainly) said that the accident was very specific to RBMK reactors, by nature more unstable than the technology used everywhere else. So basically it was said: no need to worry, our tech is much better and moreover, these russians were stupid and did stupid things to create the accident, such an accident is not possible in US, EUrope, France, etc. Still Fukushima happened, and it was in Japan with a tech that was mainly american. This creates confusion and fear in the mind of citizens, because it happened again with "top tech and no stupid russians"... So it can happen next to us?

3.2 Nuclear stuff is frightening in the minds of many people because "nuclear" is associated with bombs, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc, which were very impressive images, a kind of "nuclear tsunami" in fact. Of course, a nuclear plant is NOT a nuclear bomb (there are misconceptions around this very often i admit) BUT people have this representation because civil nuclear has been more or less created for military reasons by military people (getting plutonium for the bombs and missiles). The first applications of nuclear power have been military, then, as a "son tech", it has been for civil (energetic mainly) applications. This stays in mind of most people, and so, civil nuclear is in general associated in people minds with destruction, death, illness, and (last but not least) SECRECY, which was the culture inherited from military years.

That's why this is frightening ALSO (in adition to the facts above, keeping in mind that a plant like Fukushima IS still a dangerous beats for a long time of course) for many people.

This is psychology, but psychology doesn't mean pure invention or "it's wrong". It's based on facts that are associated (sometimes with misconceptions, it's true) all together to create this perception... Mr KELMM can be upset by this, but it's also a fact.
 
Last edited:
  • #748
a.ua.
131
10
Still Fukushima happened, and it was in Japan with a tech that was mainly american.
This creates confusion and fear in the mind of citizens, because it happened again with "top tech and no stupid russians"...

You can not imagine how surprised us.:wink:
Everything is relative, we say.
But, wait, wait, we can go very far their fabrications.
 
  • #749
jlduh
468
0
Nuclear compensation fund recovery to take decades

Japan's Board of Audit says it could take more than 30 years for the government to recover funds it has invested to help compensate victims of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

The government has issued bonds worth 5 trillion yen, or 50 billion dollars, to help the plant's operator Tokyo Electric Power Company pay compensation. It is for people who've had to evacuate, and farmers and fishermen who've lost their livelihood.

The government plans to recover the funds through an annual pay-back by TEPCO and contributions from other nuclear power companies.

But the Board of Audit says if TEPCO does not go into the black, recovery would not end until 2044.
Even if the utility's profits improve, the funds would not be fully recovered until 2030.

The Board of Audit expects the need for government assistance to balloon further as demands for decontamination and real estate compensation increase.

The board wants TEPCO to quickly balance its finances, because the longer it takes for recovery, the heavier the burden on the national budget and taxpayers.

The board is also urging the utility to sell off its property assets and subsidiaries to minimize the burden on the public.

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131016_40.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #750
Though somewhat egaggerated in wording, it is nevertheless factually accurate, though with two minor caveats

I spotted at least one serious error. Article claims that water tanks contain only tritium as a contaminant. It is obviously not true - they contain everything sans Cs.
 
  • #751
jlduh
468
0
New polls confirm that a majority of japanese prefer to pay more for their electricity than restart nuclear reactors:

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/...-see-little-pain-in-higher-electricity-rates/

Households See Little Pain in Higher Electricity Rates


Despite the Japanese government’s efforts to win support for an early restart of nuclear power plants, a new survey shows that consumers are largely comfortable with the higher prices they have to pay for electricity generated by fossil fuels.



The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said late Wednesday that the nine utilities that own nuclear plants will likely spend ¥7.5 trillion ($76.75 billion) on natural gas, oil and coal in the current fiscal year ending in March. That is estimated to be ¥3.6 trillion more than if all of their nuclear power plants had been in operation. Eight of the nine utilities posted net losses in the last fiscal year due to the higher fuel bills.

While the data points to the higher costs for the nation of not using nuclear power, the ministry also released a survey suggesting that consumers want it that way.

The poll, conducted via the Internet this summer by government-funded think tank EnviroLife Research Institute, had responses from 1,085 living in the Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya areas. Power prices in these areas have risen 19%, 25% and 16% respectively from the levels before the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

According to the poll, 31% of the respondents said they didn’t feel the pain of higher power prices, 41% said they felt the pain “a little” and 29% said they felt the pain “very much.” Roughly half of them have been trying to cut power consumption by measures such as turning off lights, air conditioners and TVs, and raising the temperature settings of refrigerators and air conditioners.

Other surveys show a continued split among people over nuclear power, more than two years after the Fukushima disaster in March 2011. In a poll conducted Oct 5-6 by the Fuji television network, 60% of the 1,000 respondents said they are opposed to restarting nuclear power while 33% said they were in favor of restarts.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party has won two national elections since late last year with a platform that included the restart of nuclear reactors. But former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, a previous LDP leader who remains highly popular, recently made a fuss by declaring his opposition to nuclear power. His son, Shinjiro Koizumi, now a lawmaker, questioned his own party’s platform, saying on Monday that “voters have remained unconvinced, wondering if it’s all right to let reactors come back on line without further discussions.”

With plants shut down for regular maintenance in the time since March 2011, there are currently no nuclear reactors operating among the 50 commissioned units.
 
  • #752
zapperzero
1,045
2
But households are not the problem here, are they? I mean, nuclear provides power which mostly gets eaten by industry, no? Also, is there sufficient reserve capacity in Japan to cover maintenance outages at conventional plants, in the absence of nuclear??
 
  • #753
a.ua.
131
10
Etudiant
As the astronomical cost of the Fukushima disaster.
I read this article.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/25/us-fukushima-workers-specialreport-idUSBRE99O04320131025
It turns out the cost of liquidation overstated.
Not less than one-third, and in fact in 2 times.
It is very bad.
Japan (represented TEPCO) , such actions in the liquidation, "con" not only themselves, but also the entire nuclear industry.
 
  • #754
jlduh
468
0
I like this one...
Tepco is always giving extraordinary answers and justifications.

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/10/...2012-→-contaminated-water-overflowed-7-times/

Heavy rain happened 7 times this year instead once based on their calculations.
Tsunami wave was 15m high instead of 6.3m based on their calculations.

Nature doesn't like Tepco.

Landslide on plant after last Typhoon (new one coming...).

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/10/photo-fukushima-plants-collapsed-slope-due-to-the-typhoon/

But for the coming typhoon, Tepco is now using TOP HIGH TECH to protect from overflow of rain water near tanks:

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/10/...cloth-over-the-tanks-typhoon-countermeasures/

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/news/libr...8209002&bclid=347242463002&bctid=637262105002

Great stuff, guys... Fukushima circus is installing (for a loooong time).

Well, maybe all this lead to this comment from NRA (Nuclear Regulation Authority) chairman Tanaka:
"Fukushima plant situation is unpredictable"

http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/10/nra-fukushima-plant-situation-is-unpredictable/
 
Last edited:
  • #755
jlduh
468
0
IAEA reorients the goals of japanese government for decontamination targets: protect populations is good, but "educate" people is better (and easier... maybe?)

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201310230076 [Broken]

Well...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #756
zapperzero
1,045
2
IAEA reorients the goals of japanese government for decontamination targets: protect populations is good, but "educate" people is better (and easier... maybe?)

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201310230076 [Broken]

Well...

It's necessary. As far as I know Japan has a very serious civil defense setup. It should be used.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #757
SteveElbows
637
9
Tentative early steps towards accepting US DOE help:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_131101_03-e.pdf

TEPCO has been discussing with the national laboratories under the United States Department of Energy (DOE) (Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) )on technical supports SRNL and PNNL could offer TEPCO regarding the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, and are currently reviewing on the details on five fields listed below.
1. Prevention of groundwater contamination
2. Water sealing for interior of reactor buildings
3. Waste treatment and disposal for decommissioning site
4. Fuel debris removal, storage and disposal
5. Contaminated water treatment
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #758
LabratSR
193
19
This has me curious as to what TEPCO is up to.




TEPCO preparing new report on Fukushima

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131106_27.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #760
jlduh
468
0
"I had thought a nuclear power plant in Japan was properly equipped with filter or something to remove iodine and other nuclides. I never imagined such wide areas were contaminated."

Some people sometimes always repeat that citizens are afraid by nuclear power because they are ignorant of the matter. This shows that the opposite can be very true also... A lot of them underestimate the risks because they are ignorant of them and believe in the "it must be safe" or "autorities will take care of everyhting" or "if they say it's ok then it should be ok..." blablah...

For the specific SPEEDI coverup, this is a pure scandal and i have only one word: disgusting. If people are sick or finally die because of this lie (in this case hidding data is lying of course), the people responsible for this should be sent to jail. Point.
 
Last edited:
  • #762
Some people sometimes always repeat that citizens are afraid by nuclear power because they are ignorant of the matter. This shows that the opposite can be very true also... A lot of them underestimate the risks because they are ignorant of them and believe in the "it must be safe" or "autorities will take care of everyhting" or "if they say it's ok then it should be ok..." blablah...

They do it when a few decades go by without serious incident while they listen to nuclear industry's PR that "everything is absolutely safe".

Now another accident happened and people aren't trusting nuclear again.

To escape this cycle, nuclear industry should do less PR and instead use their energy and money for *actual work towards making power stations safer*.
 
  • #763
gmax137
Science Advisor
2,209
1,821
... To escape this cycle, nuclear industry should do less PR and instead use their energy and money for *actual work towards making power stations safer*.

Can you point me to an example of this PR? When I turn on my TV, all I see is soothing ads from the Coal Council and the Nat Gas Association, telling me how clean and green their products are. Or well-placed spokesmen convincing me global warming is a hoax. Or news pieces telling me fracking is freeing us from the wacky religio-politics of the middle-east. I have never seen advertising from the nuclear power industry outside the trade magazines.
 
  • #764
etudiant
Gold Member
1,238
128
Can you point me to an example of this PR? When I turn on my TV, all I see is soothing ads from the Coal Council and the Nat Gas Association, telling me how clean and green their products are. Or well-placed spokesmen convincing me global warming is a hoax. Or news pieces telling me fracking is freeing us from the wacky religio-politics of the middle-east. I have never seen advertising from the nuclear power industry outside the trade magazines.

You raise a good point.
The nuclear industry in the US is non existent in terms of public profile and now largely non existent in the financial sector, as the supplier base is largely foreign owned.
So the only publicity the industry gets is free publicity when things go wrong.

In retrospect, nuclear died in the US when Alvin Weinberg was fired. Subsequently, the AEC was abolished and the focus on energy broadly defined gave us the DOE and NRC we have today, vast organizations without a clear purpose.
 

Suggested for: The more political thread besides Japan Earthquake: nuclear plants scientific one

Replies
46
Views
818
Replies
41
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
241
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
136
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
318
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
462
Replies
2
Views
205
Replies
7
Views
845
  • Last Post
Replies
29
Views
750
Top