Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

[Shakespear]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Plutonium is Nasty stuff !!!

[ASH]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

You don't have to go back as far as SARS. Just two years ago, the media, with help from the WHO and CDC, were going apeshit over H1N1, treating what was a fairly mild flu virus (which requires contact precautions, i.e. hand hygiene, cover your sneeze, etc) as a highly dangerous airborne transmissible disease. IIRC, even EJ and FRED succumbed to the hysteria on this board, along with the usual suspects. I also recall the conspiracy nonsense that H1N1 was intentionally created by one of the Big Pharma companies.

We were lucky that the first go round of H1N1 didn't have a very high mortality rate, but that wasn't apparent when H1N1 first surfaced. People were going apeshit because H1N1 had the potential to be very infectious, and had that been combined with a high mortality rate, there would have been a problem. The expectation value found by multiplying an extremely negative outcome by a small probability can still be pretty negative, and the only way to manage the type of risk presented by H1N1 is an early response. The response of WHO and CDC was entirely appropriate. You would expect that in a majority of similar cases, an early and aggressive response will end up looking foolishly pessimistic, because later the threat will turn out to be a damp squib. But in situations where a response cannot be effective if one waits until the degree of threat is 100% known, there isn't a rational alternative.

[cbr]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

it appears likely to me that this reactor situation is overblown... it is a bad industrial accident; it apparently has the worst case potential to possibly give under 1000 people acute radiation poisoning; it apparently has the worst case potential to give maybe 100,000 people in japan a slightly increased chance of getting cancer.

a large grain elevator or plant explosion is worse than this; this is nowhere near Bhopal on the scale of industrial accidents.

i would wager that the power loss from the loss of use of the plants could have more harmful impact than the actual nuclear meltdown.

the real story is the quake and tsunami, the energy, food and supply chain disruption, and the long term impact on what appears to be a viable hydrocarbon energy alternative.

hopefully the effects wont be any worse than that, and the response will be a mature improvement of nuclear and other facilities rather than a rash abandonment of a viable energy source.

PS: keep in mind that hiroshima and nagasaki are vibrant cities and have been for a long time despite the nuclear holocaust.... and chernobyl is a thriving wildlife park.

[Shakespear]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I know better because reading this comment shouts loud ... But for Fun cbr "PS .. and chernobyl is a thriving wildlife park." You ready for an exciting vacation? When you are I will help you make reservations for you. Plenty of vacancies. http://media-newswire.com/release_1145741.html

[c1ue]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

No, not a "NOT", but almost certainly Rocky Flats.

Activists: Plutonium Traces in Air Near Rocky Flats

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/04/ac...r-rocky-flats/

For those of you not familiar with the event. This was a nuclear trigger factory manufacturing the plutinium "triggers" for H Bombs. The place caught fire some years ago, much in the same way and for the same reasons that here in the UK we had a fire at Windscale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

If a piece of plutonium goes near a Geiger counter, I guarantee it will have more clicks than twice background.

So yes, it IS a NOT.

What is far more likely is that the Colorado count is from someone at high altitude. High altitude = less atmosphere = more radiation from space.

For those who actually want to see data, here's what Japan is reporting in terms of radiation monitoring around the immediate vicinity of Fukushima (30 km radius):



Source: http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_me...03727_1716.pdf

Units are microsieverts - and the numbers shown are above "background" radiation levels.

Again, 'normal' background radiation is 40 microsieverts/day = 1.66 microsieverts/hour

Hardly a plume of glowing bits...

[we_are_toast]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Again, 'normal' background radiation is 40 microsieverts/day = 1.66 microsieverts/hour

Hardly a plume of glowing bits...

And here are some readings around the plant;

Readings reported on Tuesday showed a spike of radioactivity around the plant that made the leakage categorically worse than in had been, with radiation levels measured at one point as high as 400 millisieverts an hour. Even 7 minutes of exposure at that level will reach the maximum annual dose that a worker at an American nuclear plant is allowed. And exposure for 75 minutes would likely lead to acute radiation sickness.

At times, readings around the plant yesterday were 300,000 times greater than normal.

Move along, nothing to see here, everything is normal and just peachy keen.

[Kadriana]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

We were lucky that the first go round of H1N1 didn't have a very high mortality rate, but that wasn't apparent when H1N1 first surfaced. People were going apeshit because H1N1 had the potential to be very infectious, and had that been combined with a high mortality rate, there would have been a problem. The expectation value found by multiplying an extremely negative outcome by a small probability can still be pretty negative, and the only way to manage the type of risk presented by H1N1 is an early response. The response of WHO and CDC was entirely appropriate. You would expect that in a majority of similar cases, an early and aggressive response will end up looking foolishly pessimistic, because later the threat will turn out to be a damp squib. But in situations where a response cannot be effective if one waits until the degree of threat is 100% known, there isn't a rational alternative.

It seemed very hit and miss with H1N1. I know some people who were sick for only a couple days but both myself and two children were sick for 10+ days. My children ended up having to go to the hospital. My daughter ended up with breathing treatments and my son had to get an IV for severe dehydration. He took a 2 hour nap and when he woke up, he was no longer able to cry. The weird thing is the symptoms varied a lot between the three of us and my husband had a 99 temp for one day and was fine the next day.

[c1ue]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

At times, readings around the plant yesterday were 300,000 times greater than normal.

Move along, nothing to see here, everything is normal and just peachy keen.

Indeed. I've never said everything was fine - but 400 millisieverts is still 0.0013 of what what happening at Chernobyl.

And the levels both before, after, and now are far lower.

In that vein:

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2...not-about.html

FUKUSHIMA: IT’S NOT ABOUT RADIATION, IT’S ABOUT TSUNAMIS

A lot of wrong lessons are being pushed on us, about the tragedy now unfolding in Japan. All the scare-talk about radiation is irrelevant. There is no radiation danger, there will be no radiation danger, regardless of how much reactor melting may occur. Radiation? Yes. Danger? No. Life evolved on, and adapted to, a much more radioactive planet, Our current natural radiation levels—worldwide—are below optimum. Statements that there is no safe level of radiation are an affront to science and to common sense. The radiation situation should be no worse than from the Three Mile Island (TMI) incident, where ten to twenty tons of the nuclear reactor melted down, slumped to the bottom of the reactor vessel, and initiated the dreaded China Syndrome, where the reactor core melts and burns its way into the earth. On the computers and movie screens of people who make a living “predicting” disasters, TMI is an unprecedented catastrophe. In the real world, the molten mass froze when it hit the colder reactor vessel, and stopped its downward journey at five-eights of an inch through the five-inch thick vessel wall. And there was no harm to people or the environment. None.

Yet in Japan, you have radiation zealots threatening to order people out of their homes, to wander, homeless and panic-stricken, through the battered countryside, to do what? All to avoid a radiation dose lower than what they would get from a ski trip.

The important point for nuclear power is that some of the nuclear plants were swept with a wall of seawater that may have instantly converted a multi-billion dollar asset into a multi-billion dollar problem. That’s bad news. But it’s not unique to nuclear power. If Fukushima were a computer chip factory, would we consider abandoning the electronic industry because it was not tsunami-proof? It would be ironic if American nuclear power were phased out as unsafe, without having ever killed or injured a single member of the public, to be replaced by coal, gas and oil, proven killers of tens of thousands each year.

Moreover, the extent and nature of the damage from seawater may be less than first implied. Rod Adams, a former nuclear submarine officer, who operated a nuclear power plant at sea for many years, says that inadvertent flooding of certain equipment with seawater was not uncommon. He includes electronics-laden missile tubes. “We flushed them out with fresh water,” he said. “Sometimes we had to replace insulation and other parts. But we could ultimately bring them back on line, working satisfactorily.”

The lessons from Japan involve tsunamis, not radiation.

Theodore Rockwell
Member, National Academy of Engineering

Dr. Rockwell’s classic 1956 handbook, The Reactor Shielding Design Manual, was recently made available on-line and as a DVD, by the U.S. Department of Energy.

This article notes: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...day/page3.html

Nothing else in the quake-stricken area has come through anything like as well as the nuclear power stations, or with so little harm to the population. All other forms of infrastructure – transport, housing, industries – have failed the people in and around them comprehensively, leading to deaths most probably in the tens of thousands. Fires, explosions and tank/pipeline ruptures all across the region will have done incalculably more environmental damage, distributed hugely greater amounts of carcinogens than Fukushima Daiichi – which has so far emitted almost nothing but radioactive steam (which becomes non-radioactive within minutes of being generated).

Indeed.

Where are all the calls for banning gasoline stations, and natural gas pipelines, and electrical substations?

What about all the carcinogens and pollutants released by 7 meter tsunamis wiping out entire small cities, strewing debris all over the land and ocean?

But of course none of this matters for those with an agenda.

[c1ue]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

We were lucky that the first go round of H1N1 didn't have a very high mortality rate, but that wasn't apparent when H1N1 first surfaced. People were going apeshit because H1N1 had the potential to be very infectious, and had that been combined with a high mortality rate, there would have been a problem. The expectation value found by multiplying an extremely negative outcome by a small probability can still be pretty negative, and the only way to manage the type of risk presented by H1N1 is an early response. The response of WHO and CDC was entirely appropriate. You would expect that in a majority of similar cases, an early and aggressive response will end up looking foolishly pessimistic, because later the threat will turn out to be a damp squib. But in situations where a response cannot be effective if one waits until the degree of threat is 100% known, there isn't a rational alternative.

The question that should be asked, is was the process for determining the danger of H1N1 and SARS flawed?

Because unquestionably there were huge economic and social damages inflicted by the ensuing panics.

And as I noted with SARS, between that and H1N1 there were now 2 separate incidents where a panic was induced for nothing.

This itself is damaging - how many people will respond next time WHO/CDC cries wolf?

Thus to say that the product of extremely negative consequences multiplied by small likelihood should always be acted on is simply another form of Pascal's Wager - only unlike Pascal's Wager, there are clear negative consequences for doing so. This is exactly like the AGW situation.

I don't have a view one way or the other on whether the response was overblown, but clearly 2 misses in a row is an issue.

[touchring]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

it appears likely to me that this reactor situation is overblown... it is a bad industrial accident; it apparently has the worst case potential to possibly give under 1000 people acute radiation poisoning; it apparently has the worst case potential to give maybe 100,000 people in japan a slightly increased chance of getting cancer.

The combined damages from the nuclear accident, tsunami and earthquake is definitely more serious than the WTC tower collapse that created a recession in 2002-2003.

I wouldn't dismiss this so easily.

[touchring]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

I'm already hearing fear in Russia, Brazil, and China over 'radioactive' Japanese products.

90% of "Japanese products", including those with Japanese words on them are made in China, if you are not aware.

Even the seaweed used to wrap the sushi, the 'japanese eel', the pickled radish is from China. I heard they even rear fugu in China.

[seanm123]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

Kobe beef on sale?

[unlucky]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

And as I noted with SARS, between that and H1N1 there were now 2 separate incidents where a panic was induced for nothing.

The way our media reacts to these incidents is a disaster in its own right. Large parts of the media quicky turn to speculation and hyperbole.

They are obviously incentivized to act this way. Factual information about these technical matters is difficult to present and explain. Far better to focus on fear, which is easy to report and keeps the audience glued to the television.

Some of the blame for this goes back to Tepco, however. I have noticed how some people cope successfully with "crisis" situations where they are suddenly placed under a microscope and every action/decision they take is scrutinized and criticized. Success seems to depend on keeping up a generous flow of hard, factual information about what is going on, while avoiding speculation and killing off speculation when you can. Pretty much the opposite of Tepco's policy so far.

[c1ue]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

90% of "Japanese products", including those with Japanese words on them are made in China, if you are not aware.

Even the seaweed used to wrap the sushi, the 'japanese eel', the pickled radish is from China. I heard they even rear fugu in China.

This is patently untrue.

The percentage is way too high, and furthermore varies widely between different product categories as well as price levels within each category.

Even for nori - sushi wrap seaweed - China produces some, but Japan produces (produced?) 3 times as much.

As for fugu, Japan consumes at least 2000 tons a year. The vast majority of imports come from South Korea - as the fish generally come from the Sea of Japan and East China sea, but these are both highly regulated and restricted.

I doubt more than 1/3 of Japan's consumption comes from imports.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Excellent article explaining the situation at the Fukushima plant

This just in from the UK Daily Mail:

The moment nuclear plant chief WEPT as Japanese finally admit that radiation leak is serious enough to kill people



By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:45 PM on 18th March 2011

• Officials admit they may have to bury reactors under concrete - as happened at Chernobyl
• Government says it was overwhelmed by the scale of twin disasters
• Japanese upgrade accident from level four to five - the same as Three Mile Island
• We will rebuild from scratch says Japanese prime minister
• Particles spewed from wrecked Fukushima power station arrive in California
• Military trucks tackle reactors with tons of water for second day

Overwhelmed: Tokyo Electric Power Company Managing Director Akio Komiri cries as he leaves after a press conference in Fukushima

The boss of the company behind the devastated Japanese nuclear reactor today broke down in tears - as his country finally acknowledged the radiation spewing from the over-heating reactors and fuel rods was enough to kill some citizens

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency admitted that the disaster was a level 5, which is classified as a crisis causing 'several radiation deaths' by the UN International Atomic Energy.
Officials said the rating was raised after they realised the full extent of the radiation leaking from the plant. They also said that 3 per cent of the fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima plant had been severely damaged, suggesting those reactor cores have partially melted down.
After Tokyo Electric Power Company Managing Director Akio Komiri cried as he left a conference to brief journalists on the situation at Fukushima, a senior Japanese minister also admitted that the country was overwhelmed by the scale of the tsunami and nuclear crisis.
He said officials should have admitted earlier how serious the radiation leaks were.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1GymNlcva