- #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).
jlduh said: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?
Though somewhat egaggerated in wording, it is nevertheless factually accurate, though with two minor caveats:jlduh said: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.
russ_watters said: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.
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.
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!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...
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.-the goal of humans is not to be worse than nature when creating disaster.
jlduh said: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.
"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."
russ_watters said: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.
russ_watters said: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.
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"...
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.
russ_watters said:Though somewhat egaggerated in wording, it is nevertheless factually accurate, though with two minor caveats
Households See Little Pain in Higher Electricity RatesDespite 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.
I read this article.As the astronomical cost of the Fukushima disaster.
jlduh said: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
Well...
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
"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."
jlduh said: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...
nikkkom said:... 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*.
gmax137 said: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.