[Fukushima, power stations, nuclear scare]

[NEOWatcher]

The question is, how do you differentiate cancer from nuclear exposure, from cancer from other causes? It doesn't come with a signature on it. And people have been dying of cancer since long before we built nuclear reactors.

...and from a variety of man-made disasters.
Look at any superfund site, look at situations like the Love Canal, or PG&E(Erin Brockovich). Toxic industrial waste has caused increased cancer rates all over the place.
But; have these industries been stopped? No, they have been improved, added procedures, watched more closely. They have learned from the disasters and have moved on to make it safer. But; there are still non-nuclear "cancer pockets".

Why should nuclear be treated any different.

As far as displaced people... look at Centralia, Pennsylvania. Just imagine how many people would have been displaced if that happened in a more densely populated area. And that disaster has nothing to do with toxic substances. It's been a decades long disaster with no end in sight, and still growing.

So; Yes, this was a man-made disaster. Yes; it has some potential for long term affect. But; it should be treated as any other toxic industry. You learn from it, change procedures and safety protocols and move on. You don't just shut it down.

[galacsi]

This is not true , Asbestos and many other chemicals have been discarded !

[Noclevername]

This is not true , Asbestos and many other chemicals have been discarded !

Some forms of asbestos are still in widespread use. Meanwhile, the insulation industry and fireproofing still exist, just with different materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

[NEOWatcher]

This is not true , Asbestos and many other chemicals have been discarded !

Wrong; there are plenty of other toxic and cancerous chemicals being used in manufacturing. Just because some have been eliminated does not mean that all have been eliminated.
I suggest you search google news for toxic spill and see how many stories you get.

[Gigabyte]

A topic about all the other dangerous things man does would be cool.

Meanwhile, back at Fukushima, TEPCO has finally admitted that all three reactors are still putting cesium into the air. Most of it from reactor two. In other words, the radiation leaking has never stopped to this day. It's reassuring that they say the amount each hour now is 80 million times less than it used to be. But the camera images of reactor two steaming away makes the cold shut down story seem absurd.

The plant is emitting 10 million bq per hour. With 8 of the 10 bq coming from unit 2 alone. TEPCO officials tried to pass off the high levels as possibly due to “stirring up cesium” that fell on the reactors. This does not explain the high levels coming out of unit 2′s blow out panel as admitted by TEPCO.

http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=6936

This also gives credibility to the citizens that have been doing their own monitoring of radiation in Japan.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/07/1...rom-fukushima/

The continuous release of cesium (and possibly other radionuclides) for over a year now is one reason some experts say it is worse than Chernobyl, which they buried pretty damn quick. The three leaking reactors at Fukushima are a long way away from any solution to the still dangerous situation there.

[headrush]

Please don't take my lack of participation as a sign of your "victory".
I'm letting you dig your own hole. Facts and figures are conspicuously missing from every post you make, and those you do supply are by way of mass media.

Back to the benches ...

[Gigabyte]

Please stop trying to discuss me in this topic. It's insulting.

According to calculations by Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the Fukushima No. 1 plant, a total of about 10 million becquerels per hour of radioactive cesium was being emitted from the No. 1 to No. 3 reactors as of June. That is about one-80 millionths of the level that was being spewed immediately after the accident.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311dis...AJ201207240087

Other sources have been reporting what Tepco has finally admitted. It's not rocket science to take a radiation reading, and for some reason the Japanese people are taking a lot of them.

FUKUSHIMA, Japan, May 26 (UPI) -- The Tokyo Electric Power Co. says reactor No. 2 released the most radioactive materials following the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

In its release, Tepco said 900 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive materials were released from three of the four reactors at the Fukushima power plant, The Asahi Shimbun reported.

The amount of radioactive materials released as calculated by Tepco is 1.2 times the estimate of 770 quadrillion becquerels made last June by the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

Tepco said most of radioactive materials, in the form of iodine and cesium, were released from the No. 2 reactor between March 12 and March 31, 2011.

Reactor No. 2 released 360 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive materials, about 40 percent of radioactive material inside the reactor. The No. 1 reactor released 130 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive materials and No. 3 released 320 quadrillion becquerels.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...4581338058786/

"Reactor No. 2 released 360 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive materials, about 40 percent of radioactive material inside the reactor."

They have always said reactor two was the worst. Even with no explosion of the building, it seems to be the real problem child of the bunch. It's also leaking the most radiation into the ocean and groundwater. And they still don't know why.

They can spin it any way they want, but a reactor that is spewing radioactive steam out of it can't really be said to be in cold shut down.

[cjameshuff]

Other sources have been reporting what Tepco has finally admitted. It's not rocket science to take a radiation reading, and for some reason the Japanese people are taking a lot of them.

Actually, measuring and quantifying radiation is a very complex subject, nowhere near as trivial as you make it sound. It is very easy to get it wrong due to geometry of the sensor and source, stray contamination, interfering sources, etc, and interpreting the quantities takes a considerable amount of knowledge.

"Reactor No. 2 released 360 quadrillion becquerels of radioactive materials, about 40 percent of radioactive material inside the reactor."

Lets take a closer look at those numbers...the release was mostly the much more volatile iodine, the cesium wasn't even detectable until relatively late. Becquerels are a measure of activity, and I-131 is about 1400 times more active than Cs-137. 360 PBq equates to about 78 grams of I-131, almost all of which has now decayed.

That might have been about 40% of the volatile radioactive materials, it certainly wasn't 40% of the radioactive material in the reactor. That sounds pretty typical of your sources, though.

As for the 10 MBq/hour still being emitted, that works out to around 3 micrograms/hour of Cs-137. That could very easily be due to dust being kicked up by activity around the site, and that website presents no reasoned argument against that claim. Kicked up dust might be transported by steam or accumulate on surfaces moist with condensation, but it's not likely to be the steam itself, since cesium isn't volatile enough to be released that way! The isotopes you look for in steam are things like iodine and xenon. Which, again, have decayed by now.

They can spin it any way they want, but a reactor that is spewing radioactive steam out of it can't really be said to be in cold shut down.

...in fact, yes it can. "Cold shutdown" implies nothing about leaks. Actually, the fact that it'd make it much easier to conduct the repairs needed to stop leaks was probably the biggest reason cold shutdown was a significant milestone.

[Jens]

This also gives credibility to the citizens that have been doing their own monitoring of radiation in Japan.

Actually, I do have a radiation counter, though admittedly not a very complex one, and I have done my own measurements, and the level in Tokyo was not any higher than it was on the ground in Dublin when I was on a trip there (about 0.05 uSv/hour). The level in the airplane was much higher though.

[Gigabyte]

That might have been about 40% of the volatile radioactive materials, it certainly wasn't 40% of the radioactive material in the reactor. That sounds pretty typical of your sources, though.

No doubt there are some translation errors or something. I think they are trying to convey that 40 percent of the total release was from reactor 2

TEPCO officials said the high radiation level detected must have come from the No. 2 reactor because the pressure within the containment vessel, where a meltdown had occurred, fell sharply.

That would imply that around 40 percent of the radioactive materials from the No. 2 reactor was released March 15.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311dis...AJ201205250053

That still doesn't sound right, and since they insist the total release is still only 17% of Chernobyl, it certainly can't be 40 percent of the core they are talking about. It's either 40 percent of the total, or 40 percent of the amount that fell on land on March 15th, or something else. Tepco and the Japanese culture in general are not known for transparency. The whole report is very interesting, especially for the parts they still don't know about.

The radiation was primarily released by the stricken No. 2 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. This would explain the high levels of contamination found in an area to the northwest of the Fukushima No. 1 plant on March 15, 2011, four days after the Great East Japan Earthquake that triggered the disaster.

Asahi It's interesting because to date nobody is sure why reactor two released so much radioactive material, or how. They actually don't know what happened. Aside from the fuel melting completely, it's this big unknown.

TEPCO also said a large volume of radioactive materials was released in the direction of the Pacific Ocean the following day. Although it is unable to pinpoint the source, it said the No. 3 reactor was the most likely culprit.

Asahi

You have to respect that level of newspeak. The whole world knows reactor three had this tremendous explosion on March 16th, and we watched the wind blow the cloud, the dust, smoke, steam, radioactivity and who knows what else out to sea that day. And it was after that the evacuation of the plant occurred, the helicopters were sent in, reactor three was billowing steam and "white smoke", followed by building four blowing up that night. Day after day smoke and steam billowed out of the ruined buildings, it's on video.

But it's phrased as the "most likely culprit", an excellent use of language to deny reality. And it may very well be true that the entire technological might of the world is "unable to pinpoint the source". This is a grave shortcoming of nuclear reactors. When things go really wrong, nobody can take a look or mitigate the problem to find out what is happening.

There isn't any technology available to send in to find out what is up.

Like reactor three. It's almost a complete unknown still.

[Gigabyte]

Same for the radiation readings, the total amounts they are reporting. It's not an actual figure, it's calculations. Since they have no readings of the radiation that blew out to sea, they actually don't really know how much fuel escaped the plant.

Since number four is now known to not have been the source of the deadly radiation after March 16th, it has to be from reactor three. (fuel pond number four is believed to never have been on fire, much less released any radiation)

So those desperate days in March were due to the explosion at number three. The NRC transcripts clearly state the radiation between buildings three and four was at 300 rems at one point. That's 3 sieverts an hour. It's no wonder the helicopters flew so high while trying to drop water. They measured 600 rems above the plant, at 150 yards.

But again, it's an unknown as to why that was the case. Was it from fuel that was ejected from reactor three? The cloud of steam spewing forth? Was it shine from low water levels in the pools? The fuel ponds are the most likely suspects, since the levels dropped as soon as they started spraying water on them. If this is so, the danger from spent fuel is probably far worse than the reactors, safe and secure in containment.

[aquitaine]

A topic about all the other dangerous things man does would be cool.

Meanwhile, back at Fukushima, TEPCO has finally admitted that all three reactors are still putting cesium into the air. Most of it from reactor two. In other words, the radiation leaking has never stopped to this day. It's reassuring that they say the amount each hour now is 80 million times less than it used to be. But the camera images of reactor two steaming away makes the cold shut down story seem absurd.

http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=6936

This also gives credibility to the citizens that have been doing their own monitoring of radiation in Japan.
http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/07/1...rom-fukushima/

The continuous release of cesium (and possibly other radionuclides) for over a year now is one reason some experts say it is worse than Chernobyl, which they buried pretty damn quick. The three leaking reactors at Fukushima are a long way away from any solution to the still dangerous situation there.

Your "Fukushima Diaries" link had a very interesting tagline. "We are against media blackout - please support us so we may inform the world". Really, what media blackout? The media has been focusing on Fukushima virtually to the exclusion of everything else about the tsunami. Simplyinfo does little better with at least one blatantly anti nuclear rant.

So please, do us a favor and link to credible sources instead of people who are likely just making up a bunch of ** about the Fukushima disaster in order to further their own agendas.

[TooMany]

Does an assessment of the radiation outside of the evacuated area provide evidence that a devastating nuclear accident has occurred? The Japanese are a closely knit people and care about the well being of one another. A friend of mine visits Japan frequently and tells me that the public is well informed concerning the dangers.

Besides Japan is not a totalitarian state. Anyone can buy a detector and check their water, food and surroundings. Be assured that if their were significant public exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, we would hear about it. Meanwhile the anti-nuke paranoia propagandists will continue to argue that the accident is far more serious than it actually is. Somehow they must elevate it beyond Chernobyl which was in fact much more serious because the radiation was released into the atmosphere in particulate form exposing many people and contaminating the area. There was absolutely no containment structure and the graphite moderator caught fire, an impossibility in the Fukushima reactors.

There are risks with dangerous substances. Remember the chemical release in India (see Bhopal disaster)? Thousands of people died and thousands more were permanently damaged. In terms of loss of life and damage to health, that accident far exceeds Chernobyl. More people die in coal mining every year than died or will die due to Chernobyl.

The severity of the natural event that caused the failure of Fukushima reactors is extremely rare, even for Japan. The severity of the damage done by the natural event itself far exceeds the additional damage attributed to the reactors.

However, we can learn and make reactors even safer than they already are. There was a clear mistake at Fukushima in locating the backup power. More modern designs are in the works that are passively stable. That is, even with a loss of power, the reactor is safe. Holding ponds may need to be safer and we need to recycle fuel to vastly reduce the quantity of radioactive waste requiring long term storage.

It is quite ironic that people can worry more about reactors than driving their cars. A small number of people have been killed by radiation exposure in the US related to nuclear power development. So far as I am aware not one member of the public has been killed by a nuclear power accident in the entire 60 year history. People make up stories that Three Mile Island caused latent deaths, but let's see some proof.

Meanwhile it is a fact that over 30,00 people have been killed in auto accidents every year for the last 80 years in the US. That's at least 2,000,000 fatalities in the same time period that nuclear power has been in existence in the US.

What is wrong with this picture of the evaluation of dangers? Perhaps propaganda that enhances the fear of a substance that can cause damage without being felt or seen? The reality of the danger is minuscule relative to the fear. Sure we have to be careful but to fear this important source of power may lead us to a much worse world than if we embrace it.

[danscope]

Your evaluation of these dangers is no comfort to someone who dies a slow death due to exposure to radionuclides....for what ever reason. Remember: those reactors were said to be made "as safe as possible".
They were not. Not even close. This industry is more in the market for making money than they are in making truly safe power. There is much work to do before we can rely on anything they put out as
public relations. Just a sad fact of life.

[TooMany]

Your evaluation of these dangers is no comfort to someone who dies a slow death due to exposure to radionuclides....for what ever reason. Remember: those reactors were said to be made "as safe as possible".
They were not. Not even close. This industry is more in the market for making money than they are in making truly safe power. There is much work to do before we can rely on anything they put out as
public relations. Just a sad fact of life.

They may have been as safe as possible when they were designed 50 years ago and built 40 years ago. Fifty years ago most cars had no seat belts. Twenty five years ago most cars had no air bags.

Unfortunately many people die long slow deaths from cancer. Cancer can eventually kill you a long time after exposure to a major dose of nuclear radiation. In the US no one in the public has ever received such a dose from a nuclear power plant accident. However, approximately 500,000 Americans do die of cancer every year. For example, people frequently die from melanoma caused by overexposure to the sun (but still don't bother to wear hats). Some cancers have been linked to environmental pollution.

Why do you so fear this particular danger which is among the unlikeliest of all to kill or sicken you? You are far more likely to die in a car accident, from cancer, from a disease, from an air crash, from a fire, from lightening, from a tornado, from a bullet, from texting when you should be looking, from falling off a ladder or even from a snake bite. If you live in an urban area, your lifetime is likely to be shortened by breathing fumes and particulates from burning hydrocarbons.

Nothing is 100% safe and no one can guarantee you perfect safety. Eventually you are going to die, but the chance that it will be caused by a nuclear power accident is just about zero. For the benefit derived, nuclear power is among the safest industries in the world. The fear is completely out of proportion to reality. The appropriate term for this type of fear is paranoia.

It is a sad fact of life that most businesses are in it purely for the money and have little regard for consequences. That includes the fossil fuel industry which causes far more damage that nuclear power. If we continue to burn the stuff (which we most likely will because there is lots of money to be made) the consequences to the world population may be staggering. The fossil fuel public relations will of course tell you this is not true. In fact that propaganda machine has successfully convinced many people that scientist have lied and invented man-caused global warming to keep their jobs.

We have to assess the dangers of those things that benefit us rationally. Dangers must be minimized but they cannot be totally eliminated. Even home solar power has it's dangers, e.g. during installation when people can fall off the roof.

[Ara Pacis]

Your evaluation of these dangers is no comfort to someone who dies a slow death due to exposure to radionuclides....for what ever reason.

Do people die slow deaths from exposure to radionuclides? IIRC, they either die very quickly or they recover and have a risk of cancer later in life.

Remember: those reactors were said to be made "as safe as possible".

The thing about science is that we keep learning more. Relative statements are relative. Why would you read an absolutism into it?

They were not.

You'll have to invoke deity to get to anything being as safe as absolutely possible.

Not even close. This industry is more in the market for making money than they are in making truly safe power.

Now you need to define: "truly safe" and how it relates to "as safe as possible"

There is much work to do before we can rely on anything they put out as
public relations. Just a sad fact of life.

The thing about science, is that anyone can do it. So you don't need to rely on PR.

[Glom]

Your evaluation of these dangers is no comfort to someone who dies a slow death due to exposure to radionuclides....for what ever reason. Remember: those reactors were said to be made "as safe as possible".
They were not. Not even close. This industry is more in the market for making money than they are in making truly safe power. There is much work to do before we can rely on anything they put out as
public relations. Just a sad fact of life.

Translation: I've got no argument so now I'm resorting to appeals to emotion.

"think of the cancer!"
"What cancer?"
"Just the CANCER!"

[Gigabyte]

While it's easy enough to argue the safety and other issues of nuclear reactors for power generation, talking about the Fukushima disaster, the amounts of radiation, the efforts to stop further damage, the misery of the Japanese people still, the long term effects, that is a bit harder.

I love nuclear power, it's clean, powerful, abundant (at present) and as long as nothing goes wrong, and you can pay off the up front costs, and you don't have to carry insurance, it's cheaper than coal.

But that has little to do with the Fukushima disaster.

[HenrikOlsen]

Your evaluation of these dangers is no comfort to someone who dies a slow death due to exposure to radionuclides....for what ever reason.

But how do you distinguish between the handful of people who get cancer from exposure to radionuclides.from nuclear accidents and the hundreds of thousands who get it because of naturally occurring radionuclides and the hundreds of thousands who get it from other causes which have nothing to do with radiation?

[headrush]

While it's easy enough to argue the safety and other issues of nuclear reactors for power generation, talking about the Fukushima disaster, the amounts of radiation, the efforts to stop further damage, the misery of the Japanese people still, the long term effects, that is a bit harder.

I love nuclear power, it's clean, powerful, abundant (at present) and as long as nothing goes wrong, and you can pay off the up front costs, and you don't have to carry insurance, it's cheaper than coal.

But that has little to do with the Fukushima disaster.

Why do you keep focussing on the "nuclear scare" part of the thread title then ?

If you accept that nuclear is better than coal (albeit sarcastically, and you missed the unaccounted costs of coal via pollution), what exactly has this thread been about ? If all you want to do is discuss an accident, stop blaming things on the actors in the accident. It's like discussing a car crash but focussing on whether cars should be permitted at all.

Everybody agrees Tepco have a lot to answer for, and possibly the Japanese govt. But if you would like me to go through this thread and quote every one of your posts where "nukes=bad", I will.

[quotation]

This article touches on many of the points made here and helps explain why sadly, fear almost always trumps science with regard to all things nuclear
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banya...japan-and-atom
Japan and the atom: Nuclearphobia

...according to health experts, her fear of radiation may be more harmful than the radiation itself. This is an issue of deep controversy. Many anti-nuclear accidents argue that there are not enough studies of low-level radiation to judge the risks accurately. But Shunichi Yama****a, son of a hibakusha, or atomic-bomb survivor, and vice-president of Fukushima Medical University, is adamant. Recently returned from a trip to Chernobyl, he insists the fallout in Fukushima is far less severe than the Soviet Union’s nuclear accident of 1986...Several studies bear out his views...As in Chernobyl, he argues, the psychological trauma of evacuation, overlaid by the fear of radiation, poses the biggest health risk. According to the Fukushima health survey, 14.6% of almost 9,000 pregnant women who replied indicated some feelings of depression. As in Chernobyl, the empty bottles of sake outside temporary housing complexes are an indication that more such trouble may lie ahead...the fear of radiation, though it conflicts with the facts, is understandable. Radiation causes cancer, which makes it scary. It is undetectable and hard to understand, which leaves people feeling powerless. The radiation from a nuclear accident is imposed on people, unlike medical scans or air travel. It is man-made, unlike radiation from the sun. There is a history of stigmatisation, dating back to the atomic bombs. Against such powerfully emotive factors, it is no wonder the science is given short shrift.

[Gigabyte]

From your blog link:

He notes that while nobody in Fukushima has died as a result of radiation, there were 761 victims of “disaster-related death”, especially old people uprooted from homes and hospital because of forced evacuation and other nuclear-related measures.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banya...japan-and-atom

[geonuc]

Deaths directly attributable to the meltdowns, including those due to forced evacuations, should be counted against nuclear power when weighing harm vs. benefit of the various means of generating electricity.

[Antice]

Deaths directly attributable to the meltdowns, including those due to forced evacuations, should be counted against nuclear power when weighing harm vs. benefit of the various means of generating electricity.

Deaths directly attributed to the meltdowns are already counted, and then, depending on who does the counting, they multiply it with some imaginary factor in the name of being conservative. the deaths from the forced evacuation are not nuclear related however. they are hysteria related. Even if you include those deaths nuclear still comes out way ahead of just about anything when you divide those deaths by the energy produced.

It's been said before and I'l be the umpteenth person to say it. There really is no such thing as a free lunch. all forms of energy carry a price in the form of risks. risks over time leads to casualties. it's a fact of being alive. just about anything can kill you with enough bad luck/stupidity/malice involved.
Thus the only way to compare safety is by comparing either property damage per kw/h, or the more anthropocentric deaths/kwh.

[NEOWatcher]

...including those due to forced evacuations, should be counted against nuclear power...

But forced evacuations also happen in relation to other technologies too. Do we count those?

BTW:
How many of those deaths would not have occured if they weren't alread in distress due to an EARTHQUAKE and TSUNAMI?

[Jens]

The deaths from the forced evacuation are not nuclear related however. they are hysteria related.

That's not really true, because in the early stages the government really wasn't sure what was going to happen, and in the interest of safety they had the people evacuate. It may have turned out not to be necessary, but it's not uncommon to evacuate a building because there might be a fire, and I don't think it's hysteria if it turns out that the fire alarm was false. It's precaution.

[Gillianren]

Heck, I had days off from school more than once when I was a kid because we weren't allowed back into the building for half an hour after an earthquake, as long as anyone could feel it, and a lot of those weren't any real danger at all.

[geonuc]

But forced evacuations also happen in relation to other technologies too. Do we count those?

Of course we should.

[NEOWatcher]

Of course we should.

But "do" we?

[HenrikOlsen]

Seeing that it's quite common to not count mining accidents as part of the human cost of coal, the answer is likely no.

Installers who fall off the roof should also be counted against solar.