/ So what are we going to do about the Fukushima issue?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Sircumfrins - on 30 Oct 2013
The Fukushima disaster that hit Japan in 2011 is no longer being reported on by the msm...as if the problem has been resolved. From what I have been reading, nothing could be further from the truth.

The majority of human beings on this planet are completely oblivious to the fact that we should be vigorously working towards resolving one of the most immediate and serious threats to our way of life...and yet no one even knows that there is an existential threat.

Here is a link to an article about some of the recent findings (the English section is half way down the page):

http://netzfrauen.org/2013/10/29/28-belege-dafuer-dass-ganze-westkueste-usa-durch-radioaktiven-fallo...

Here is a video link to a must watch youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUOw77DCows

Here is an interview with Dr. Christopher Busby who is a scientific advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC, gives his views. Skip to 06:47 to have a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHABWi71wcw

Everyone needs to read and share this information to start bringing this issue to the forefront of our collective conscience.

I can't see a subject that could or should be considered above this right now.

Make no mistake, this is an ecological and humanitarian disaster of EPIC proportions and requires urgent attention.

Please spread the word.
SARS on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Yup, so bad that ski resorts are still operating in Fukushima...
ice.solo - on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

And yet almost none of those things have been found along the japanese coast where levels are less diluted.

There certainly are problems but they need to be correlated with existing causes, not all heaped on the latest factor. Most of those coastal areas were previously massively pollution affected already.
Sircumfrins - on 30 Oct 2013
Postmanpat on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
>
>
> Here is an interview with Dr. Christopher Busby who is a scientific advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC, gives his views. Skip to 06:47 to have a listen:
>

> Please spread the word.

busby is a nut job http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/nov/22/christopher-busby-nuclear-green-par...
John Rushby - on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:


baaaaaa
tom_in_edinburgh - on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) Here is a link to a petition. Please sign:
>
> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-world-community-must.fb40?source=s.fb&r_by=9391469

Handing the clean up project over to the 'world community' via the United Nations is about the worst possible way imaginable of getting things done quickly. They will spend a year arguing about who is in charge and another year coming up with their own plan of action all the time distracting the people who are actually on site and trying to fix things.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

yes, thanks for the link... Busby does seem to have an interesting choice of language for an academic:

"When I phoned Busby to ask him some questions about these issues, his responses were less than enlightening. He began as follows: "You can f*ck off frankly."

When I asked him what his involvement was with the Christopher Busby Foundation for the Children of Fukushima, he told me: "I think you can f*ck off. I'm not going to answer your questions." When I asked whether the products being sold in his name are snakeoil, he responded: "Of course it's not snakeoil you f*ckwit".

not someone i'd cite to support my case, if i wanted to persuade anyone other than the already deluded, but each to their own i guess,

cheers
gregor
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) Here is a link to a petition. Please sign:
>
> http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-world-community-must.fb40?source=s.fb&r_by=9391469

no thanks.
gethin_allen on 30 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
Are you subalpine in disguise?
I'll grant you that the situation in fukushima is less than ideal but I wouldn't agree that it's not being reported. Try these articles for a start: -
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24377520
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE99T01W20131030?irpc=93 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-31/fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-tepco-tokyo/5059514

And that last link is only 3 mins old! Not exactly out of the news.

lynx3555 - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Of all the places to build Nuclear power stations, right next to one of the most earth quake prone parts of the planet! Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity.

I wonder if they have built any, any were else in the world, that has the same high risk of meeting the same fate....
dissonance - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Perhaps set up a zoo and see what animals get mutant powers.
Admittedly could be some issues but be a replacement for the war on terror.
Dispater on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
>
> baaaaaa

Humbug.

Dispater on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
>
> baaaaaa

baaaaaaa sheep of colour.

Dispater on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
>
> baaaaaa

nanarama.
Dispater on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
>
> baaaaaa

locks.
Dispater on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
>
> baaaaaa

aaaad ass motherf@cker should be written on every real man's wallet.

And Fred Dibnah brought down WTC7.

needvert on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) Of all the places to build Nuclear power stations, right next to one of the most earth quake prone parts of the planet! Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity.
>
> I wonder if they have built any, any were else in the world, that has the same high risk of meeting the same fate....

Nothing inherently wrong with building nuclear plants in earthquake prone parts of the world. There are no sites in the world which are immune to disaster, these risks are accommodated for in design - though everything is subjected to cost/benefit decisions.
Dispater on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> The Fukushima disaster that hit Japan in 2011 is no longer being reported on by the msm...as if the problem has been resolved. From what I have been reading, nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> The majority of human beings on this planet are completely oblivious to the fact that we should be vigorously working towards resolving one of the most immediate and serious threats to our way of life...and yet no one even knows that there is an existential threat.
>
> Here is a link to an article about some of the recent findings (the English section is half way down the page):
>
> http://netzfrauen.org/2013/10/29/28-belege-dafuer-dass-ganze-westkueste-usa-durch-radioaktiven-fallo...
>
> Here is a video link to a must watch youtube video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUOw77DCows
>
> Here is an interview with Dr. Christopher Busby who is a scientific advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC, gives his views. Skip to 06:47 to have a listen:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHABWi71wcw
>
> Everyone needs to read and share this information to start bringing this issue to the forefront of our collective conscience.
>
> I can't see a subject that could or should be considered above this right now.
>
> Make no mistake, this is an ecological and humanitarian disaster of EPIC proportions and requires urgent attention.
>
> Please spread the word.


Can you post that again? I fell asleep with boredom and disinterest trying to read it the first time.

And people telling people about a 'must watch' video send scam emails about long lost relatives that have bequeathed six million pounds of pig manure to the first person that can sing 'Our souls' quickly and repeatedly, without it sounding as if they're shouting 'arseholes'.

And that's scientific fact.
ice.solo - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) Of all the places to build Nuclear power stations, right next to one of the most earth quake prone parts of the planet! Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity.
>
> I wonder if they have built any, any were else in the world, that has the same high risk of meeting the same fate....

im assuming youre alluding to the reactors in california along the san andreas fault line.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Padraig on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Cant be bothered reading it all... BUT how long we got??
ice.solo - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> Perhaps set up a zoo and see what animals get mutant powers.
> Admittedly could be some issues but be a replacement for the war on terror.

funny you mention that.

ive been into the former 20km exclusion zone maybe 15 times over the last 2 years (my family live on the edge of it), and theres thousands of animals still wandering around after being abandoned.
the cows and dogs all look pretty normal. hungry, but not dying on their feet.

likewise, japan has lots of big mammals living along its coastline north of fukushima. lots of seals, some fishing cats, monkeys and bears (tho no polar bears admittedly, just coastal black and brown f*ckers).
no one is reporting these diseases in them, in a country now saturated with independant radiation watchers. this includes members of my response group, whos readings match what the govt releases.

most of the old exclusion zone is uninhabited as the amenities were destroyed, but heaps of monkeys have been living there. they arent being reported as being diseased.

yes, ground water in some areas is a problem, but its usually surface water as cesium isnt hydro-bonding (the wind is a bigger problem than the rain).
problems inside the plant are very worrying tho. yes, water has been leaking, and more bad stuff escaped than originally thought. fishing and farming in certain areas has been banned, and some fish with problems have been caught by researchers.

its not a non-problem - its a f*cking big deal. but chain letters like this from people with agendas cause more problems than they solve. hysteria is not the way forward now any more than it was the day the f*cking thing blew.
needvert on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

I read the first page. It was full of shit. I can write up why when I get in front of a computer at some point.


Please, don't spread this junk around. If you want to spread information regarding the problem at least provide it from more a credible source, such as the relevent bodies within the USG, UN or EU.
lynx3555 - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to ice.solo: California, China, one in Armenia...not aware of any others, probably are but I couldn't find anymore. It might not be long before the ones in California are tested by the same combination of earthquake and tsunami. From what I was just reading, there are conflicting views as to the likely hood that they will survive something similar to Japan's event.

I prefer Nuclear to coal fired power stations, but when disasters occur with in the Nuclear industry, it tends to have a severe effect on public opinion; could have a severe effect on human health, and could have an adverse effect on the the environment.
ice.solo - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to lynx3555:



armenian facilities are a concern. not sure a forgotten corner of the ussr keeps up to scratch. at least its tsunami proofed...

people either forget or dont know that what happened to the dai ichi was caused by an anomaly of an event - an +M.8 quake then an 18m surge of water. it wasnt the norm.
and when criticizing that it should have been built for it, tend to ignore that the dai ni plant 20kms down the coast was hit by the same effects and DIDNT f*ck out.
what went wrong in dai ichi was both human error before the event and confusion-pushed error after, along with confusion on a higher level that saw vital international groups delayed and/or pulled back when it mattered. when fukushima needed the right people from around the world on the ground, foreign governments were holding them back and calling for absurd restrictions based on standards that didnt fit the scenario.

the californian ones are very similar to the japanese ones. most japanese ones are based on the same design and have been overseen by the american groups that helped build and run them. i dont know if thats a good or bad thing...

agreed re nuke vs coal. coal is way more dangerous and devestating until something goes wrong, when nuke becomes an unknown. its true that when nuke has gone wrong its has been relatively harmless in comparison, but thats some sort of gamble. when coal goes wrong - and it regularly does - lots die. coal is also a big cancer and long term threat



Ridge - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

"About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com."

No bias there then. "A bazillion becquerels of NUCLEAR RADIATION". Very scary, although even low level sources used to calibrate instruments can have inventories measured in giga and terabequerels.

Fukashima is a mess, but shit like this doesn't help.
Jim C - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to gethin_allen:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
> Are you subalpine in disguise?
> I'll grant you that the situation in fukushima is less than ideal but I wouldn't agree that it's not being reported. Try these articles for a start: -
> http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24377520
> http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE99T01W20131030?irpc=93 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-31/fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-tepco-tokyo/5059514
>
> And that last link is only 3 mins old! Not exactly out of the news.

Our company used to be owned by the Japanese, we all had cultural understanding courses.
All I will say is, if something else goes wrong, you might not get an honest admission, as they don't like to lose face.
Interesting that early day reporting after the accident the Japanese public were widely reported of being sceptical of what they ( and the world) were being told.

For sceptical, read , they did not believe a word of it, it turned out to be right to be sceptical.
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> "About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com."

I was going to post exactly that! Interestingly there aren't any footnotes to where we can read further on these disasters, just a assertion that the writer publishes "The Truth" (note capitalisation - I bet he really wanted green ink too).

Mr Sircumfrins likes this sort of stuff, the last time I discussed an issue with him was when he posted some YouTube videos that 'proved' the Holocaust hadn't really happened. It's a very strange mindset that I don't really understand - why would you believe somethings when the evidence is non-existent or so shaky, but then not believe others things so hugely documented?
Enty - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

And another thing. That toxic sea water map of The Pacific which has been doing the rounds on social media is a hoax. It's actually a map of wave sizes immediately after the earthquake.

E
dissonance - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

> most of the old exclusion zone is uninhabited as the amenities were destroyed, but heaps of monkeys have been living there. they arent being reported as being diseased.

Monkeys? Watch out they will merge into one and then the Empire state building is toast.
More seriously it is what would be expected from the studies of Chernobyl. Some animals seem to do well others not so well.
Trangia - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Baaaaa

Now if you want something to REALLY panic about, try this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24746539
Toby_W on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Trangia:

OH MY GOD, better get the wine club on speed dial ;-) Is there a petition?

Toby
hokkyokusei - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Dispater:
>
> And Fred Dibnah brought down WTC7.

I'd love to read a conspiracy theory along those lines!
Blue Straggler - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> And another thing. That toxic sea water map of The Pacific which has been doing the rounds on social media is a hoax. It's actually a map of wave sizes immediately after the earthquake.
>
> E
IS that the one that's all red and says the ocean is "frying"? I didn't even click the link when it popped on a FB acquaintance's page, she is one of those who just propagates any old crap if it says "evil government machine killing the environment"
malk - on 31 Oct 2013
malk - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to ice.solo:
>
> people either forget or dont know that what happened to the dai ichi was caused by an anomaly of an event - an +M.8 quake then an 18m surge of water. it wasnt the norm.

has hinkley c prepared for this anomaly? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb4T8a1K5tw

> and when criticizing that it should have been built for it, tend to ignore that the dai ni plant 20kms down the coast was hit by the same effects and DIDNT f*ck out.

who designed that one?


toad - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to hokkyokusei:
> (In reply to Dispater)
> Fred dibnah brought down WTC7
>
> I'd love to read a conspiracy theory along those lines!

did't you see him drilling out the girders and propping them up with sleepers in the weeks before? Or the CIA trucks of car tyres being brought in at night? And not one creditable news source reported hearing the old waggon horn blarting in the seconds before it collaped!

D'you like that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=945T56ZxFkE
Flinticus - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Hysterical.
malk - on 31 Oct 2013
Flinticus - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to malk:
The language and tone of the original post.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Trangia - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Toby_W:
> (In reply to Trangia)
>
> ) Is there a petition?
>
> Toby


I do hope you've signed it?! :)
ice.solo - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to malk:
> (In reply to ice.solo)
> [...]
>
> has hinkley c prepared for this anomaly? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb4T8a1K5tw
>
no idea. id like to know more about the wave estimates as well as the facility.
>
> who designed that one?

same bunch - GE and tepco. same construction, but 10 years later so maybe more advanced.

Dominion - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

If you have an Android Smartphone, you can install the NHK Radio app, which will give you daily news bulletins from Japan, in English, in which Fukushima and TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) have been featuring quite a lot.

Because of the time difference, it's best to listen to the clips, rather than live...

It looks as though TEPCO are about to be broken up, as they seem to be either incompetent or incapable of dealing with it, or too proud to ask for help.

It's a National problem, and needs dealing with at a National Level, not a company level.



English news from Tokyo on the internet via

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/

ice.solo - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to Dominion:

theyre also so massively in debt now that in order to secure their other assests and facets sectioning off the f*cked bit(s) makes sense.

incompetency and COC problems royally screwed the nuclear element, but other parts still function well - they have afterall helped keep a nation running on 40% less power for 2 years, and the dam levels etc are starting to show the strain. weakening the entire energy network due to their screw ups isnt a good idea.
Dominion - on 31 Oct 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

Obviously, you are a lot closer to it than me, but from this distance, I'm only hearing the headlines of incompetence, and I do realise that Japan has been running with almost all of it's Nuclear Power stations turned off pretty much since March 2011. 80 or so of them in total, isn't it, I think?

But the incompetence of having equipment that would only read radiation levels up to (from memory) 100 millisieverts of radiation, and then reporting that a leak from a water tank was only registering 100 millisieverts and nothing to worry about - and then having to admit a day or so later that it was actually something like 1800 millisieverts is astounding.

Sounds like they had people doing monitoring who did not understand the equipment they were using. And have potentially been exposed to damaging, if not fatal doses.


That's just part of what I've been hearing, and it seems astonishing, as it's been going on like that for months.
ice.solo - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Dominion:

its the japanese system at its worst, buck-passing and trying to maintain face (whilst genuine good stuff has been going on unrecognized). if anything its ripping open the culture of arrogance and nepotism that is rife in some sectors (abe is also kicking asses around in agriculture and fisheries). much of it is bubble era throw-backs that stagnated into comfortability after being privatized, but as the growth leeched away they failed to keep up. basically, idiots have been running some things.

the radiation reading stuff i dont know what to make of. i know first hand that the finest devices were in the country.
to me it sounds like industry arrogance yet again. international or independant bodies may have measured otherwise, but the people who made the decisions only listened to the same old cronies. japan is full of that in some sectors.
it could also be a matter of how radiation levels are calculated, using different formulas and at different points in the process. like the japanese can sometimes do, they may have not altered protocols for proper readings - possibly because the aging f*cker who installed it 20 years ago is still at the top and doesnt like being questioned. astounding is the word.

and, yes, its been going on like this for years now. juggling prime ministers like italians doesnt help as the blame gets passed along and the nepotism of the old guard gets shuffled about. i dont doubt theres also large input from GE fearing inquiries into their other facilities as well.

Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Dominion: Thank you Dominion. Unfortunately I've got an old school phone. I'll use your link though.

I disagree with your last paragraph. This is an international problem as you cannot confine the fallout to the boundaries of Japan...it really does require an international response and quickly. I think the world is not being told the true extent of this disaster.
Ridge - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Dominion)

> I disagree with your last paragraph. This is an international problem as you cannot confine the fallout to the boundaries of Japan...it really does require an international response and quickly. I think the world is not being told the true extent of this disaster.

Firstly, there's already an international response. As Mr solo has said, there's a huge amount of equipment there from across the world. There are also experts from the nuclear industry in the US and Europe. Learning from the disaster is being disseminated and resilence to similar accidents is top priority at just about every nuclear site across the world.

What do you think the world isn't being told, apart from AMERICA IS BEING TOTALLY FRIED BY NUCLEAR RADIATION, according to some bloke who wouln't know a microSievert from a gigaBequerel?
Dominion - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> I disagree with your last paragraph. This is an international problem as you cannot confine the fallout to the boundaries of Japan...it really does require an international response and quickly. I think the world is not being told the true extent of this disaster.


Sorry, what I was trying to put over that it appears to a certain extent to have been left to TEPCo to deal with it, and clearly they seem to be struggling - costs issues seem to have been a reason for not putting into place a mechanism to stop ground water getting either into or out of the site* - as well as the seeming incompetence that appears to be dogging them.

* ground water - it's been suggested that they effectively install some sort of system that creates a frozen "ring" around the site to stop ground water getting in, and getting out, but that's expected to cost $billions to implement, but is very clearly needed.


And that's why I was suggesting it was a National problem, but I do take your point, that assistance in monitoring and dealing with it might well need international assistance, and if the site continues to leak, then it will be an international problem.



And ice.solo - yep, hiding problems to save face. I was struggling to think of "saving face" when I was writing last night, but it has been worrying me that TEPCo were unwilling to ask for help - because the problem is so big they cannot cope - because it would be embarrassing for them, if you see what I mean.



||-)
Choss on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

To answer the thread Title:

"Take off and nuke the Site From orbit. Its the only way to be sure"
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Ridge: My understanding is that TEPCO are still currently overseeing operations and their solutions aren't anywhere near resolving the issue.
What we need to learn from this disaster (and previous ones) is that nuclear power, as a solution to the worlds energy needs, is just too dangerous to proceed with. How we ever came to the conclusion that nuclear energy was the answer to our future energy needs is beyond me.
There are 2 sides to this story. Generally I'm seeing that the MSM are downplaying the severity of this issue (I also notice that this issue is not getting much television airtime but rather miniscule coverage in the back of newspapers, magazines and on their internet pages meaning articles about Skippy the backflipping dog or XFactor, often gain more coverage...which is completely insane) whereas the AM are reporting the total opposite. Who do you believe?
I don't trust the MSM. As far as I'm concerned they're merely glorified PR agencies for governments and corporations...therefore when I hear them say there isn't a great deal to be worried about you should flip their double-speak around and know that there is more to the story than meets the eye.
artif on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Ridge)
> What we need to learn from this disaster (and previous ones) is that nuclear power, as a solution to the worlds energy needs, is just too dangerous to proceed with. How we ever came to the conclusion that nuclear energy was the answer to our future energy needs is beyond me.


You stop using it, they'll stop producing it.
If you want a t.v laptop street lights etc etc then you need power to run it.
What ever way you make it, there is a price to pay.

More wind farms that'll do it!!!!!!!!!!


Ridge - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Ridge)

> What we need to learn from this disaster (and previous ones) is that nuclear power, as a solution to the worlds energy needs, is just too dangerous to proceed with. How we ever came to the conclusion that nuclear energy was the answer to our future energy needs is beyond me.

So, in an event which killed nearly 20,000 people an incident at a nuclear plant that hasn't killed anybody is evidence that nuclear power is just too dangerous. What about if radiation had killed 116 kids in the local junior school? Thats what the coal industry did in Abergan in 1966. Add in deaths from pollution, industrial accidents and global warming then coal is responsible for millions of deaths up to now, with millions more to come. Yet Germany is being applauded for buliding new coal plants and abondoning nuclear? Some perspective is needed here.

> There are 2 sides to this story. Generally I'm seeing that the MSM are downplaying the severity of this issue (I also notice that this issue is not getting much television airtime but rather miniscule coverage in the back of newspapers, magazines and on their internet pages meaning articles about Skippy the backflipping dog or XFactor, often gain more coverage...which is completely insane) whereas the AM are reporting the total opposite. Who do you believe?
> I don't trust the MSM. As far as I'm concerned they're merely glorified PR agencies for governments and corporations...therefore when I hear them say there isn't a great deal to be worried about you should flip their double-speak around and know that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

So if the MSM says vapour trails aren't killing angels in heaven it's obviously a lie? There are far more than 2 sides to any story. The nuclear industry isn't as safe as they would have us believe, that's true. Overtopping the sea wall at Fukashima wasn't an unexpected event. A 1000 year event against a plant with a lifetime pushing 100 years gives s probability of 1:10 over the lifetime of the plant. It was a very likely event that was forseeable and contingencies should have been in place. Then again it's a more accurate reflection of reality than that shite you linked to in your original post.
wintertree - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> ... nuclear ... is just too dangerous to proceed with.

We can master it, just as we mastered sugar syrup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Molasses_Disaster

Flippant perhaps, but it is something we understand. It is possible to design and build much safer reactors, with much more "passive" safety to help in worst case scenarios. The use of Thorium as the fuel further reduces risk. Despite the crap reported in the media, thorium cycle is a tried and tested technology.

> How we ever came to the conclusion that nuclear energy was the answer to our future energy needs is beyond me.

The ongoing holocaust of an estimated 1,000,000 people dying - per year - from air pollution caused by fossil fuels? The desire for more energy security?
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Dominion: True. Incompetence is probably a big factor however I think the logistics of fixing this problem is so great that they genuinely have no idea where to even start.

From what I've been reading and listening to, the frozen ring idea just doesn't seem feasible and would be an engineering nightmare...some serious
international collaboration should have been arranged from the outset.

Imagine this happened in the UK. Would everyone here be happy with the course of action that the Japanese people have been afforded?

It seems to me that the position that some posters on here have taken is that of the MSM. The "It's not SUCH a big problem so don't worry too much about it" attitude which disgusts me. You should be ashamed of yourselves. What if it was your family living near Fukushima? Would you be happy with the "assistance" they're getting? Would you be able to rest easily knowing that 2 years after the disaster a solution had still not even been reached? Would you be happy knowing that nuclear waste had entered your ground water? It's never YOUR issue until it literally happens to YOU.

They should have had an overwhelming and immediate response, the likes of which have never been seen before. The full resources of the global community should have garnered and utilised by the very best in their respective fields, to neutralise this issue. Look what they've got...

How could the Japanese government allow a mere company to attempt to remedy the situation on their own? They should have immediately stepped in and started calling the shots and taking ownership of the situation.

At the end of the day we are talking about the safety of everyone and all living creatures on this planet. There is no safe level of radiation. There is no north, east, south or west on a living, spinning sphere. The ocean currents, the jet streams and life itself does not conform to Japanese passport control. We will all experience the taste of Fukushima and the other Fukushima's in waiting in the future.

...The ski resorts are still operating...unreal.
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Ridge: Are you being serious? Do you believe that we should continue building nuclear reactors as an answer to our energy needs? Would you be happy living next to a nuclear reactor?
IainRUK - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: I think the nuclear threat is overplayed..

Look at chernobyl. Wild life flourishes once Humans leave.

I don't think it will have a serious impact at all, not enough to risk our way of life. We may see increases in the incidences of cancers, some reproductive defects in the natural environment, but long term impact at the population level? I just don't think that will happen at the moment.

I also think we are too scared of radiation, something entirely natural and that we are exposed to on a daily basis. I'm not saying it can't be harmful, of course it can, but through diet, drink, flights, sun, x-rays, ct scans we already expose ourselves to large amounts of it.
IainRUK - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Ridge) Are you being serious? Do you believe that we should continue building nuclear reactors as an answer to our energy needs? Would you be happy living next to a nuclear reactor?

Yes.

Jim Lovelock even offered to have nuclear waste buried in his garden he was that confident that this was the future.
artif on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Dominion)


There is no safe level of radiation.



Don't eat bananas or brazil nuts, burn coal or sunbathe then.
I really hope you don't climb on limestone or granite let alone live near it.
And never ever fly in a plane because you will surely die of radiation sickness.



Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to wintertree: Can we master control of the weather? Can we master the movement of the ground beneath our feet? Can we master other external factors? Can we master the safe removal and disposal of nuclear waste (which takes centuries to decompose)? More importantly, can we master ourselves, to the extent that error or malice will not occur?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I'm pretty shocked by your comments...speechless!
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to artif: Wow, again, speechless.

Are you really trying to compare natural radiation to nuclear radiation?

Do you not think there is a slight difference between the more "natural" radiation we have lived with since our inception and nuclear radiation that human beings have unlocked?

I think I'd prefer eating a sun-radiated banana than a nuclear-radiated banana...you might be of a different opinion but hey ho.
wintertree - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to wintertree) Can we master control of the weather? Can we master the movement of the ground beneath our feet?

No, and that's why over 10,000 people died at Fukushima. From a tidal wave. A few years before that 240,000 people died in the boxing day tsunami.

In the last ten years perhaps 9,000,000 people have died as a result of fossil fuels, and 11,000,000 in road crashes. Perhaps 63,000 people have died mining coal (mainly in China.) , thousands have died in armoury explosions, industrial accidents, boat disasters etc.

Go away and see if you can come back with a plausible nuclear power disaster scenario that could kill 1% of the number of people killed as a consequence of global use of wider technology.

> Can we master the safe removal and disposal of nuclear waste (which takes centuries to decompose)?

Yes. We can invest the money in reprocessing, transmutation and geologically stable storage of the shorter lived transmutation byproducts.

> More importantly, can we master ourselves, to the extent that error or malice will not occur?

That's the real problem. I would love to see a coherent roll out of modern, passively safe reactors running non weaponisable thorium cycle across the world. It needs to be done with the highest standards of safety, free from corruption, open and transparent and well regulated, and not beset with an overarching bureaucratic management. Not far off of la-la-land then :(
wintertree - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Do you not think there is a slight difference between the more "natural" radiation we have lived with since our inception and nuclear radiation that human beings have unlocked?

> I think I'd prefer eating a sun-radiated banana than a nuclear-radiated banana...you might be of a different opinion but hey ho.

Science 101. There is - and always has been - nuclear irradiation EVERYWHERE.

There were 16 giant, ancient and natural nuclear fission reactor in Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

I believe it's obligatory to link to XKCD at this point
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
artif on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
Whats the difference, none- alpha, beta, gamma and xrays thats it, where it comes from is irrelavent, just the amount and Fukishima isn't going to make much difference locally or worldwide.
Cement works and crematoriums are higher emitters of radiation than any nuclear plant.

You really need to do some research in to the subject.
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to artif: I should do some research? One can always do with more research...however maybe you should stop posting really gormless comments. Last time I checked you didn't have to evacuate whole towns due to a crematorium being compromised...

Let's get back on topic. You're happy with the way the Fukushima disaster is being handled?

What did you think of this post of mine:

True. Incompetence is probably a big factor however I think the logistics of fixing this problem is so great that they genuinely have no idea where to even start.

From what I've been reading and listening to, the frozen ring idea just doesn't seem feasible and would be an engineering nightmare...some serious
international collaboration should have been arranged from the outset.

Imagine this happened in the UK. Would everyone here be happy with the course of action that the Japanese people have been afforded?

It seems to me that the position that some posters on here have taken is that of the MSM. The "It's not SUCH a big problem so don't worry too much about it" attitude which disgusts me. You should be ashamed of yourselves. What if it was your family living near Fukushima? Would you be happy with the "assistance" they're getting? Would you be able to rest easily knowing that 2 years after the disaster a solution had still not even been reached? Would you be happy knowing that nuclear waste had entered your ground water? It's never YOUR issue until it literally happens to YOU.

They should have had an overwhelming and immediate response, the likes of which have never been seen before. The full resources of the global community should have garnered and utilised by the very best in their respective fields, to neutralise this issue. Look what they've got...

How could the Japanese government allow a mere company to attempt to remedy the situation on their own? They should have immediately stepped in and started calling the shots and taking ownership of the situation.

At the end of the day we are talking about the safety of everyone and all living creatures on this planet. There is no safe level of radiation. There is no north, east, south or west on a living, spinning sphere. The ocean currents, the jet streams and life itself does not conform to Japanese passport control. We will all experience the taste of Fukushima and the other Fukushima's in waiting in the future.

...The ski resorts are still operating...unreal.
IainRUK - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: well lets compare?

My PhD marine biology.. 20-25 peer reviewed journal articles.. you?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) I think the nuclear threat is overplayed..
>
> Look at chernobyl. Wild life flourishes once Humans leave.
>

I'm not sure Chernobyl is the best advert for nuclear power.
IainRUK - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure Chernobyl is the best advert for nuclear power.

Why? The ultimate disaster. Long term impact? Considerable. Impact on our way of life? f*ck all.
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to IainRUK: ...That makes it worse!
artif on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
You either have low level continuous exposure to toxic elements (radiological or chemical)as in carbon, sulphur etc from fossil fuels or one big hit as in Fukishima either way its going to be bad.
As previously posted the deaths /illnesses from other forms of pollution have been and are far more damaging than that of fukishima.

The global community IS working on the problem, the U.K is involved already and the U.K nuclear industry has spent £100's of millions already , as a direct result of the events in Japan.

The clean up in japan will take many years to do it safely, you cannot rush in and hope for the best, every step has to planned and reviewed in minute detail. 2 years to plan and execute a major engineering project is just not feasible no matter how many people you throw at it.
There is no Thunderbirds to call and save the day.
ice.solo - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Rather than old net disinformation you could always try proper news

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131101_35.html
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to ice.solo: "They've decided to enhance technical cooperation...", thanks for that proper news.
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> There is no safe level of radiation.

You see, there's your problem. You say things like that and you just prove you have no idea what you're talking about. It's no wonder you then get sucked in by the type of junk you linked in the original post. Of course it's a disaster but if we don't understand the science, we've got little way of appreciating how big a disaster, let alone what to do about it.
Sircumfrins - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to TobyA: Maybe you should have read that in the context in which I was speaking. There is no safe level of nuclear radiation exposure...would you agree with that?
wintertree - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to TobyA) Maybe you should have read that in the context in which I was speaking. There is no safe level of nuclear radiation exposure...would you agree with that?

It's not often I say this, but you have no idea what you are talking about. The world was full of elements emitting nuclear radiation long before mankind ever came along. I remember the first time I used a Geiger counter. Beep, beep, beep... The stuff is everywhere, always has been. I suspect that without it, evolution would have been much slower. Yet more radiation rains down from outer space.

All this radiation - is it safe? Well it's almost certainly not going to be what kills you.
SARS on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

There's no doubt that Fukushima is a major ecological disaster that impacted tens of thousands of lives. I don't think anyone disagrees with you here. However, I think the Japanese are doing a pretty good job sorting themselves out after such a major event. Do you think Brits or Americans would have done better?

What exactly do you want "the world" to do?
John Rushby - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) well lets compare?
>
> My PhD marine biology.. 20-25 peer reviewed journal articles.. you?

My mate Big Nosed Fisky reckons prawns are ticklish

Are they ?
ice.solo - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

There are safe levels of radiation, determined by exposure time, type and mitigation factors.
This has been known, standardized and engaged for decades.

Have you ever been involved in radiational events? Or did you gather your knowledge from hollywood and here say instead?
Dominion - on 01 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> How could the Japanese government allow a mere company to attempt to remedy the situation on their own? They should have immediately stepped in and started calling the shots and taking ownership of the situation.


Because the government had all of the after effects of a massive earthquake and tsunami to deal with.

This was not just a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) going wrong, as at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. It was just one small piece in a massive natural / national disaster.

Now it's a major part that is still ongoing.

With the government enforced shut down of all other NPPs there is a major shortfall in energy generation, and lots of new rules about NPPs having to prove that they're not sited on or near geological faults, and having to have local approval before they can even be considered to be candidates for starting up again. NPPs also have to make, and test plans for evacuation of all local populations in the event of another earthquake in the vicinity of a NPP, as well, before they can even go to the local population for approval, I think...

And while all that has been going on, or rather right at the start of it, TEPCo probably gave assurances that they had the expertise, man power and experience to deal with the Fukushima Daichi NPP, and government said "OK get on with it, we've got our hands full already."

And it has only really become apparent in the last year or so, if that, that TEPCo were either lying to save face, incompetent, or overwhelmed.


There has been a lot going on over the last 30 months or so, and the Fukushima NPP is only a small - but increasingly significant - part of it all.

ads.ukclimbing.com
ice.solo - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Dominion:

Excellent point.
Its worth noting that contamination from sea salt, industrial and agricultural chemicals has wiped infinitely more life than radiation has.
IainRUK - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Why? We live with radiation on a daily basis.. you eat fruit? Yet say even low level radiation is bad? Its a perfectly natural substance all around us. Yes high levels are bad, but we can cope, look at the sun.. that pelts us with a huge chunk each year, more in times of high activity, same flying, I guess you never take a flight?
IainRUK - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to TobyA) There is no safe level of nuclear radiation exposure...would you agree with that?

No.. there is even the view.. held by a colleague from Harvard.. that low levels are good.. hormesis.. low level stress heightens your responses and prolongs life. But lets just rant away ignorantly.

Lets go back to that Ray gun... you really do like to back your arguments with evidence..
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity)
> [...]
>
> Why? The ultimate disaster. Long term impact? Considerable. Impact on our way of life? f*ck all.

But we don't live in Northern Ukraine or Belarus. What do you mean by "our way of life"? Only in the UK?

IainRUK - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity: He is talking about impact on a global level. At a global level it is just pissing in the rain. Significant effects locally but even many of those living close to Chernobyl, 3 mile island and the bombs lived healthy lives.. many don't of course.. but at a global level the impact will be minimal.
ice.solo - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

its startling the first time you ever turn a radiation counter on. in the most normal of environments they start clicking in a way that hollywood has depicted for years as meaning 'danger! its all about the end!'.
at that point one realizes - the universe IS radiation, its made of it, we are swimming in those particles all our lives.

of course, higher concentrations than our systems can cope with OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME get unsafe, and at those levels the counter virtually sings. we never saw that, not even close. our operators we flew in got higher doses on the flight. over 100 days where we passed thru the exclusion zone regularly our counters never read beyond the secondary alert level (out of 3).
terrifying, absolutely. but one has to be realistic about it.
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Submit to Gravity) He is talking about impact on a global level. At a global level it is just pissing in the rain. Significant effects locally but even many of those living close to Chernobyl, 3 mile island and the bombs lived healthy lives.. many don't of course.. but at a global level the impact will be minimal.

I agree. I don't think it's wise to underplay the effects of, for example, Chernobyl though. We don't, as individuals or communities, live at a global level.
IainRUK - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Submit to Gravity: I don't think I underplayed it.. but a nuclear disaster is not the global end the OP states it is. And as I said, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished. There were impacts, genetic effects, but removing man was afar greater advantage.
Offwidth - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

It's like climbing in a sense: there is no zero risk, in that you could be exceedingly unlucky and an interaction could start a cancer. A lot of life involves keeping the terror of dangers that might happen in tight perspective. Some of us are not very good at this and worry a lot and start mad petitions.

I've been pro nuclear but anti-nuclear industry since I was a young teenager.. too much evidence of incompetence and cover up, military links (weapons grade material) and dreadful economics which I don't think are anything like countered enough by some obvious positives. Its a lonely position being pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear industry although there are more proportionally in science and engineering than in the general public. I'm hoping Thorium will turn my views around but we are not there yet.
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> Maybe you should have read that in the context in which I was speaking. There is no safe level of nuclear radiation exposure...would you agree with that?

Nope, I don't agree and in fact I know you're wrong.
In reply to TobyA: There is interesting anecdotal evidence about the health outcomes of those who left the Chernobyl area and those who stayed - apparently they are remarkably similar, which if true could have various explanations - the one I've read is that the stress of being forced from one's home is as damaging to health as the effects of low-level radiation. I would imagine the large initial dose would have at least as much to do with it though.
Swirly - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to TobyA) Maybe you should have read that in the context in which I was speaking. There is no safe level of nuclear radiation exposure...would you agree with that?

No and as you recommend learning more on the subject I suggest you read some GCSE physics.
Dispater on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Dominion) There is no safe level of radiation.

Well, FFS, don't go and live in Cornwall, or anywhere else that sits on Granite.
You'll be positively dooooooooomed, Capt Mainwaring.

BMrider - on 02 Nov 2013
In reply to Choss:
> To answer the thread Title:
>
> "Take off and nuke the Site From orbit. Its the only way to be sure"

Ha ha, thank you Choss. I really did laugh out loud at that : get Sigourney Weaver to deal with Fukushima. Priceless.

to the OP, learn from the experience, so it can't happen again. As I understood it, the situation was worsened because basic safe procedures had not been followed due to financial/profit considerations.
GrahamD - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> I guess you never take a flight?

You had better hope they aren't connected to the internet via Wifi either.

David Martin - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to gethin_allen:


That last link came up elsewhere and I call bullsh1t on it.

It refers to "experts", but names only Yale's Charles Perrow. Granted Charles is a professor. But his PhD is in sociology. Hardly an expert on the potential for chain reactions in decommissioning procedures.
David Martin - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Ridge) Would you be happy living next to a nuclear reactor?

I for one wouldn't be happy. But I live in a leafy green residential area so would be having a word with my local council if anything more industrial than a kindergarten were built nearby.

If a power station were to be built next door, I'd much rather it be nuclear than gas, oil or coal however.
andrewmcleod - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Essentially there are two (not unreasonable) beliefs:

a) Low level radiation is still dangerous - just less dangerous - all the way down to zero radiation (and roughly linear at low doses). So if 10 units of radiation has a 0.001% chance of killing you, 1 unit has a 0.0001% chance of killing you.

As the more conservative estimate of danger, this is typically used to estimate deaths from Chernobyl, for example, at about 4,000.

b) Low level radiation is not dangerous - below a certain threshold (too low to be statistically measured at this point) - radiation is no longer harmful (or potentially even helpful).

If you believe (b), then there isn't really a problem from nuclear power stations, and even when they do go boom it is a local problem.

If you believe (a), then it is true that there nuclear accidents are more of a widespread problem BUT at quantifiable levels, not just 'random death for millions!'. More importantly if this is true, you should start building nuclear reactors immediately to reduce your radiation intake - because every unit of energy produced in a coal power plant releases MORE radiation to the atmosphere than the equivalent unit in a nuclear power station, in the form of very large quantities of very weakly radioactive fly ash. This is, as other people have pointed out, even ignoring the potentially millions killed every year due to poor air quality.

I would love it if someone could work out the average deaths per TWhr for different forms of electricity, and the average deaths per power station over its lifetime. What is more important than than the absolute risks of different power generation technologies is the relative risks. Coal is I believe the worst, and nuclear one of the safest, even safer I think than wind power where construction accidents offset the low emissions.

Nuclear power, when it works (which is usually), is much tidier than other methods of energy generation because while it does make very very messy things it doesn't make very much and it can be contained in a small space. Other forms of energy generation dump vast quantities of crap into our air.
andrewmcleod - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to andrewmcleod:

The Internet to the rescue! :)

Nuclear power is much much much safer than everything else.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
brokenbanjo - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

I thought the OP was an amazing troll to begin with, but turns out he's just a blinkered idiot. I live near Heysham, regularly visit the area around Sellafield and have been on, worked with the farmers and eaten bilberries from the land that has only just had the Chernobyl restrictions lifted. So yeah, I'd live near a nuclear power station. Actually, I regularly used to go swimming in the shadow of Heysham as a boy with my family. No issues.

Quite frankly because nuclear can be weaponised we have the negative press. Storage is an issue, but in the UK we have the right geological strata, but it's in Cameron's backyard, so it won't be put there. Perhaps if we had to store gaseous emissions, we would see the scale of the problem with regards CO2 etc. But we don't, and that is an aside.

Oh ice.solo perhaps you might want to modify this:

"this includes members of my response group, whos readings match what the govt releases."

A conspiracy theorist, like the OP may jump on the last part of that sentence. Surely it should be the govt's readings match your response groups!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jim Fraser - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

I suspect that, although Fukishima is a problem, not all of the problems that are now becoming apparent through measurement are due to Fukushima. After Chernobyl, all over Europe, measurements were taken that had never be recorded before. Panic all over the place but limited proof of the source.
Ridge - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to andrewmcleod:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> Essentially there are two (not unreasonable) beliefs:
>
> a) Low level radiation is still dangerous - just less dangerous - all the way down to zero radiation (and roughly linear at low doses). So if 10 units of radiation has a 0.001% chance of killing you, 1 unit has a 0.0001% chance of killing you.
>
> As the more conservative estimate of danger, this is typically used to estimate deaths from Chernobyl, for example, at about 4,000.

Applying similar methodology. Drinking 40 pints of beer in one go might well kill you, UK consumption of beer is about 16 billion pints, therefore the entire population of the UK is dead from exposure to beer.
IainRUK - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> I suspect that, although Fukishima is a problem, not all of the problems that are now becoming apparent through measurement are due to Fukushima. After Chernobyl, all over Europe, measurements were taken that had never be recorded before. Panic all over the place but limited proof of the source.

In Wales the sheep tested high for a decade? But it was always suggested that Traws was the issue.. which shut down due to stability issues..
needvert on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to andrewmcleod:
...
> I would love it if someone could work out the average deaths per TWhr for different forms of electricity, and the average deaths per power station over its lifetime. What is more important than than the absolute risks of different power generation technologies is the relative risks. Coal is I believe the worst, and nuclear one of the safest, even safer I think than wind power where construction accidents offset the low emissions.

On the topic:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903
Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 1). This amounts to at least hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000 deaths per year were avoided annually between 2000-2009 (see Fig. 2), with a range of 19,000-300,000 per year.

It would appear further nuclear power proliferation would save a lot of lives.
Offwidth - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to needvert:

One nuclear war could turn that to a significnat deficit in a jot. Be careful where you proliferate.
wintertree - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to needvert)
>
> One nuclear war could turn that to a significnat deficit in a jot. Be careful where you proliferate.

That's why we need to move to thorium as a fuel. Despite what the greens keep saying it is a tried and tested technology. However as its of no use to a weapons program (the real reason tee have nuclear power) it's been largely shunned.
needvert on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to andrewmcleod:

a) aka a linear no threshold model. I found this an interesting read, if only because it casts doubt in my mind on the large estimated death tolls from Chernobyl some came to from LNT models:

The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/
needvert on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Right...I'm infront of a keyboard now and am waiting for dinner to cook. Now to address 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima By Michael Snyder because I find bullshit entertaining.

1. Polar bears, seals and walruses along the Alaska coastline are suffering from fur loss and open sores

From the linked article: "Reuters noted that preliminary studies do not support a theory that the disease is due to contamination from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan."

2. There is an epidemic of sea lion deaths along the California coastline

Extremely poorly written article with dead links. Appears to suggest a conspiracy involving the US government (with both the CDC and the FDA involved).

3. Along the Pacific coast of Canada and the Alaska coastline, the population of sockeye salmon is at a historic low. Many are blaming Fukushima.

The linked article actually says "Kotyk said department scientists don’t know why the return numbers are so low.", there is no mention of anyone blaming Fukushima or radiation.

4. Something is causing fish all along the west coast of Canada to bleed from their gills, bellies and eyeballs.

The linked article mentions suspicion that its due to a pathogen (possibly viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus), no mention of radiation.

5. A vast field of radioactive debris from Fukushima that is approximately the size of California has crossed the Pacific Ocean and is starting to collide with the west coast.

There's no vast field of radioactive debris mentioned in the blog post. There is concern expressed by some that there is the possibility of some debris being radioactive.


6. It is being projected that the radioactivity of coastal waters off the U.S. west coast could double over the next five to six years.

Quote from the linked article: "The total peak radioactivity levels would then be about twice the pre-Fukushima values. “While this may sound alarming, these levels are still lower than those permitted for drinking water,” said Böning."

7. Experts have found very high levels of cesium-137 in plankton living in the waters of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and the west coast.

The article does not mention cesium-137. It's titled "Researchers find high cesium in some Pacific plankton", it then discusses cesium-134.

8. One test in California found that 15 out of 15 bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima.

Link is a blog post again (same blog as before, washingtonsblog.com).

"15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137 at levels that produced radiation about 3% higher than natural background sources"

3% more than natural background sources...OK. This one is at least honest. But alarmist by not mentioning the trivial degree of contamination.

9. Back in 2012, the Vancouver Sun reported that cesium-137 was being found in a very high percentage of the fish that Japan was selling to Canada

Linked article starts off with "After the world's worst nuclear accident in 25 years, authorities in Canada said people living here were safe and faced no health risks from the fallout from Fukushima" then later "The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which monitors food safety, says it is aware of the numbers but says the amounts of cesium detected are small...".

There are some counter positions mentioned in the article (the first being by a family physician, later on by an anti-nuclear advocate. Not overly convincing stuff.)



I was expecting some weak evidence...But I'm amazed at just how bad that page is. It's dishonest and manipulative.
wintertree - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to needvert:

> 5. A vast field of radioactive debris from Fukushima that is approximately the size of California has crossed the Pacific Ocean and is starting to collide with the west coast.

Are you quoting from an unaired episode of Brass Eye?
Offwidth - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to wintertree:

You would think so wouldn't you. The guy the OP is quoting is an dangerous idiot peddling half truths or downright lies to the gullible and paranoid.
tony on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to wintertree:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
>
> That's why we need to move to thorium as a fuel. Despite what the greens keep saying it is a tried and tested technology.

When you say it's a tried and tested technology, do you mean there are production reactors currently working? If so, where? As far as I've been able to find, there are no commercial thorium reactors anywhere, despite all the interest.
Sircumfrins - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: David Suzuki gives his views:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTqzqoKMLEg
Ridge - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

They do have a valid point about numerical risk being exceedingly difficult to calculate (I've seen frequencies of 5.09 E-7 /yr bandied about for APR1000 core damage, that must be one hell of a fault tree).

However, big tsunami probabilities aren't 'astronomical', they're highly likely over plant life times, and then he starts using terms like '95% certain' for earthquakes.

The stuff about there must be 'no risk' is just nonsense, especially when you look at deaths from other methods of power generation. And as for 'Bye Bye Japan and evacuate North America' for a fuel fire - total nonsense. A disaster for sure, but by no means as deadly as they claim.
IainRUK - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> They do have a valid point about numerical risk being exceedingly difficult to calculate (I've seen frequencies of 5.09 E-7 /yr bandied about for APR1000 core damage, that must be one hell of a fault tree).
>
> However, big tsunami probabilities aren't 'astronomical', they're highly likely over plant life times, and then he starts using terms like '95% certain' for earthquakes.
>
> The stuff about there must be 'no risk' is just nonsense, especially when you look at deaths from other methods of power generation. And as for 'Bye Bye Japan and evacuate North America' for a fuel fire - total nonsense. A disaster for sure, but by no means as deadly as they claim.

Yeah I was amazed at that.. anyway they have started rod removal.. not sue what the time frame is..
Ridge - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

I've spent ages looking at adjacent Youtube videos. Did you know there's space-alien cities on the far side of the moon that were photographed by Apollo 47 and hushed up the CIA until a Russian Cosmonaut called Nigel leaked the video?
wintertree - on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to wintertree)
> [...]
>
> When you say it's a tried and tested technology, do you mean there are production reactors currently working?

Not currently, no. 25 years ago.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

Tried, tested, run for years, and dismantled. Germany had a commercial scale thorium reactor outputting power to their grid. It coinidentlly tried some other new technology - "pebble bed" - a passively safe design unable to meltdown. Between the high costs (prototype) and a minor incident with the prototype pebble bed system they cut funding and took it apart. And now 25 years later they are building new coal plants and everyone "knows" thorium isn't a proven technology.

If it could be done 25 years ago, it can be done better now. The concept works - proven.

Thankfully various countries are following it, but not us in the UK.

It's absolutely bats*it mental.
 
andrewmcleod - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to wintertree:

My understanding was that the pebbles tended to produce radioactive dust as they rubbed against each other which made the inside of the reactor 'messy'.
Ridge - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to wintertree:
Pebble bed reactors, IIRC, also required the use of carbide fuel to operate at their full patential, which is unpleasant stuff to handle.
Offwidth - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Ridge: In the electronics materials research industry I lost count of how many gases, metals and liquids were tricky to handle and could poison, blow me up, give me bone cancer or otherwise kill me.
Ridge - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Ridge) In the electronics materials research industry I lost count of how many gases, metals and liquids were tricky to handle and could poison, blow me up, give me bone cancer or otherwise kill me.

Same here when I worked in the chemical and waste industries. However, nuclear material is different both in terms of hazards, and also public perceptions. For example

Uranium - toxic heavy metal, wouldn't sprinkle it on my cornflakes but wouldn't be too worried idly rolling a lump around my desk.

Magnesium / mag alloys - mostly harmless, be a bit careful milling it though.

Put the two together, uranium rod in Magnox alloy cladding and irradiate in a reactor, a different story. Bursts into flame in contact with air, releases NUCLEAR RADIATION THAT WILL TOTALLY FRY AMERICA, (sic), so has to sit in a pond for a bit, where the caesium 137 leaches out, and the rods corrode into sludge etc, and theres upteen thousands of tonned of it kicking about...

Having fuel that also generates acetylene is an added bonus ;-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Dominion - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Dominion:

And an update today is that they are starting to remove the fuel rods from reactor 4 which was actually offline at the time of the tsunami, but was damaged by a hydrogen gas explosion. So now the pool where the rods were stored is clear enough to start removing rods to a safe location, the equipment needed to do this has been replaced. The removal is going to take several months, with batches of 22 at a time, each batch taking several days to remove safely.

There are 1500 fuels rods, some of which may have damaged casings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24843657


This is very clearly a long term project. Reactor 4 is the least damaged.


I suppose the real problem is that no one really thought through the whole process of "how do we safely decommission a nuclear reactor" let alone one that is damaged.

Obviously things have to be done as safely as possible, and without causing damaging exposure to radiation to the workers tasked with this.

See also

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131107_03.html

but I heard it first on my android NHK app. Although these are news bulletins, not in-depth reports... But they do report stuff that UK news programs don't bother to mention...
Ridge - on 07 Nov 2013
In reply to Dominion:

Quite an interesting article. It appears they're actually cracking on with things, rather than doing absolutely nothing as implied in the original post. There's a bit of hyperbole in the BBC article, a damaged fuel rod isn't exactly unheard of in the nuclear industry, you get some leaching of caesium 137 which is very soluble, the long term issue is it sticks to the pond walls, then if the level drops you get an increase in direct dose, as it's quite a hard gamma emitter, (they use it as a source in industrial radiography), but that's only an issue for anyone standing near the pond. It's not something unique to Fukashima, every fuel pond in the world has that problem to an extend. In fact in a lot of the old ponds some of the rods have rotted away, never mind being 'feared damaged'.

Also the flask moves, that's nothing unusual. As I'm typing this there'll be probably hundreds of water filled flasks being dangled from overhead cranes and trundling around the world's rail networks. A lot of money's been spent on dropping them from various heights, in various orientations, driving trains into them and even firing RPGs at them. Flask moves are pretty much business as usual.

On the plus side (!) there's a lot of international interest in Fukashima and it's decommissioning techniques, with a view to using them to accelerate decommissioning of other sites.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.