| lifetimefanofqueen 11.03.2011 07:40 |
shit.....saw it on the news this morning, it was the only thing on there.....my mom looked like she was almost crying, this is going to take a very very long time to clear up to normal....i love Japan and this was like one hell of a slap in the face, still shocked by this |
| Hangman_96 11.03.2011 08:27 |
Japanese liked Queen the very first time they came to their country in 1975 and they were amazed of Queen at every concert. Their big screams can be heard at every recording of every Japanese gig. And so I want to say that Japan is a very good country and I like it. It's bad that such thing has happened to their country. |
| miracle-man! 29382 11.03.2011 11:24 |
Man oh man! I can't believe this when I saw it on channel 3 news! It's a bad time to be in japan for those people. My prayers go out to them and their country. I admire the japanese for their anime like Tenchi Muyo and their video games like Street Fighter. Looks like we just got something to remember 2011 and this is it. |
| catqueen 11.03.2011 13:08 |
So horrible. My step-brother is in Japan, havent heard from him yet, just hoping he's ok. |
| Donna13 11.03.2011 16:15 |
I hope he's OK. Keep thinking good thoughts. I guess parts of the country could be without phone service for a while. It is hard to imagine the magnitude of this earthquake. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 11.03.2011 16:56 |
catqueen wrote: So horrible. My step-brother is in Japan, havent heard from him yet, just hoping he's ok. ===================================================== im so sorry to hear that hun :( but im sure he's ok! he has a wonderful step-sister like you :) |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.03.2011 03:54 |
As if this wasn't bad enough, it now looks like the Japanese also have a full-scale nuclear meltdown on their hands: link |
| john bodega 12.03.2011 04:34 |
I'm watching that reactor situation as closely as I can; just caught the video of the thing blowing its roof. Pretty fucking awful. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.03.2011 06:11 |
The latest I've heard is that the core is still contained. However, since no one dares go near the plant and the cooling system is still not functioning at all, that is a small mercy indeed. The security perimeter that is being evacuated has now been expanded from a 10 kilometer radius to a 20 kilometer one. The building housing two of the reactors at Fukushima No. 1 plant has been virtually destroyed in an explosion this morning (video on youtube: link ), and radioactive steam *has* escaped, with radiation levels reported to be at 20x the acceptable level in the surrounding area, and 1000x the acceptable level within the facility, meaning it is exceedingly dangerous to fly over it and completely impossible to enter it. I don't really see what can be done now other than sending in all available bomber aircraft to bury the thing in as much sand as possible. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.03.2011 06:29 |
I was just pointed to this video, which was filmed at Sendai airport. It shows the tsunami as it rolls over the airport. link |
| YourValentine 12.03.2011 11:46 |
The sheer horror of parts of the country lying in ruins after the tsunami and the raging fires and now they are facing a nuclear catastrophe. It could not get any worse. So much for the safe nuclear technology: it's again the people suffering for the irresponsible policy supporting nuclear technology. We cannot be angry about earth quakes and tsunamis but we can be angry about still running these reactors and I can really feel how the resistance against the old and unsafe reactors is rising in my country this very moment. |
| john bodega 12.03.2011 12:47 |
Well it's one thing to have a 'safe' nuclear reactor in a place like the one I live in - far from fault lines and less susceptible to tsunamis. It's quite another thing to build one in a place like Japan; a country that has a geographical "KICK ME" sign stuck to it's forehead. These reactors can be built to be safe, within what one considers acceptable parameters. Quite frankly though, if you're dealing with a 9.0 earthquake, then all bets are off as to what those parameters might be. Who the hell is going to be able to build a reactor that can be reasonably expected to cope with such a knocking? With the research into solar power that's coming along these days (such as the issue of supplying power when the sun isn't out, by using accumulated warmth or some such) I really think it's time for people to move on from nuclear. People have this funny idea that it's practically unlimited, but A) it isn't, and B) it's only safe until something goes wrong. Can you picture this headline? "Massive earthquake in Japan sends solar power plant into dangerous meltdown." Didn't think so. Get over nuclear, folks. |
| The Real Wizard 12.03.2011 13:06 |
The reason Japan has so many nuclear power stations is because it imports all of its oil. They learned their lesson during WWII when their oil supplies were cut off. Nuclear power is therefore the only way for them to go. Wind farms are environmentally friendly, but it's not an option for greater Tokyo with a population of 30 million. We're just not there yet.. |
| YourValentine 12.03.2011 16:12 |
The problem with nuclear power apart from the danger of accidents is the nuclear waste - where to put nuclear waste that will be dangerous for millions of years, it's just irresponsible to run all those reactors with no answer to this huge problem. In the news they say that the owners of the plant in Japan have a history of lying and have already covered up an actual meltdown in the 1970s. Profit and nuclear energy are a very dangerous mixture for any society. There should be a bigger effort to increase solar energy and wind energy, no matter if oil must be imported or not. It is really hard to understand why a country which is so densely populated and so deeply traumatized by Hiroshima and Nagasaki must have all these nuclear reactors. |
| john bodega 12.03.2011 21:43 |
I can totally understand why Japan uses nuclear in the here and now; realistically, it's something that a lot of countries might have to consider if they want to be "greener", but it is not a permanent solution. People shy away from solar, wind, etc. because it's an expensive start-up that isn't immediately viable for huge populations, as Bob points out with the 30 million figure there. All the same, we really need to make a start on this. |
| pma 13.03.2011 01:18 |
The fear of nuclear meltdown has raised a lot of discussion concerning the safety of nuclear energy in Europe. Rather unsurprisingly, our newspapers have already contained comments from our authorities stating that OUR nuclear plants are safe and every precaution has been taken and people should not be worried about the safety of nuclear energy. This is like some weird remnant of some form of Orientalist discourse, now suddenly the Japanese are some inferior race that cannot manage their plants, whereas we Europeans would never have such meltdowns. Meltdowns only occur to the Other... In 2010 Finland's funny parliament granted permission for two companies to build one new nuclear reactor each. But hey, it's safe technology here, unlike in that "technologically backward Japan"... Right? |
| YourValentine 13.03.2011 03:52 |
It's the same here, Pete. 60 000 people demonstrated against a (probably unconstitunional) law that allows longer running times for the German nuclear plants yesterday. Chancellor Merkel promised to have the security "checked", really ridiculous. Not a single nuclear plant in my country has been built without massive public protests and rallies. Now we are told that we cannot "use" the suffering of the Japanes people to re-inflame the fight over nuclear power. I think we MUST use it because I am sure that many Japanes people now wish they had had this dicussion before one reactor after another explodes because the PRIVATE owners did not invest enough into the security of this extremely dangerous technology. I can understand when people in Canada or Australia have a different view because they live in huge countries and it seems to be a relatively small risk to have nuclear plants somewhere "out there" but in Europe as well as in Japan millions of people live virtually in the front yard of old nuclear plants which have minor "incidents" by the dozens each year. We have nuclear plants in Germany and France along the Rhine with also the most active earthquake region and the biggest airport in all of Western Europe. Even the fallout of the Chernobyl catastrophe had effects in my country. I understand that Japan gets a big portion of their energy from nuclear plants but that is only because they did not invest into alternatives in the last decades. There are lots of alternatives but you must have the attitude that energy is a national issue and it cannot be left in the hands of a few profit-oriented companies. In Europe nuclear power has been hugely funded by the tax payer or else it would have never been even profitable. If the companies would have to pay for security and the huge, huge costs of the nuclear waste management nuclear energy would be so expensive that nobody could market it. The only reason to run nuclear reactors in Europe is wanting to have the technology. The overwhelming majority of the people want safe and clean energy and we are willing to fund the technolgy like we did in the last decades. Nobody needs nuclear plants in Germany today - only the companies who make all this profit from a dangerous, tax-funded energy. |
| john bodega 13.03.2011 05:34 |
I just don't like 'em. They can make them safe - incredibly safe - but no safety measure can overcome the universal law : SHIT HAPPENS. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.03.2011 07:10 |
Same in Holland. The minister for economic affairs Maxime Verhagen, who also blatantly rigged his party's congress to vote along his lines by making sure opponents didn't have the right voting forms, is currently attempting to push through permits for the construction of *three* nuclear power plants in Borsele, which is *literally* on the sea side (the nuclear power plant already there is less than 50 meters from the sea), in a location that has been severely flooded dozens of times in the past, most recently in 1953. The risk of nuclear contamination in the case of even a small malfunction is disproportionally large. Meanwhile, at Japan's Fukushima 1 plant, reactor number 3 is causing serious concern. Technicians are pumping in sea-water for emergency cooling, a bad thing already, but it now also appears that said sea-water is not even reaching the reactor itself, which is thus not cooling down. In the meantime, the sea-water used is a) being contaminated with radiation and b) being super-heated to the point where the water molecules break down into hydrogen and oxygen. As happened yesterday, an explosion of *radioactive* hydrogen gas appears likely. So far, over twenty people have been confirmed to have suffered radiation exposure. Estimates currently suggest that the real number is over 100. Nuclear fission is neither safe nor technologically advanced. A fission plant is quite *literally* nothing more than a uranium-burning steam engine. Anything that comes near enough to the actual reactor gets contaminated - cooling water, the steam used to power the turbines, safety rods, fuel containers, you name it. The possibilities for disaster are endless, and to make a good deal even better, the very unlikely catastrophes are still a serious threat, because even freak conditions occurring once every 500 years fall well within the range of probability, because the nuclear waste created remains highly radioactive for millennia. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.03.2011 07:15 |
link See the sixth image from the top for a before-after view of the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The extent of the damage is surreal. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.03.2011 07:37 |
>>>> Sir GH wrote: Wind farms are environmentally friendly, but it's not an option for greater Tokyo with a population of 30 million. We're just not there yet. <<<< ========= And we won't get there any time soon, IMO, because the lobby for them isn't as great - meaning huge, not good - as the oil lobby. In the States, the discussion of cutting oil dependence, finding renewable energy sources and having safer and cleaner power comes up only when there's a catastrophe of some sort. Soon enough, though, the conversation winds down and complacency sets in yet again. |
| Soundfreak 13.03.2011 15:11 |
Nuclear energy is one of the biggest crimes mankind has committed so far. You cannot leave waste behind, that is highly dangerous for thousands of years. Every future society or future generation should have the chance to start from point zero or to correct mistakes that have been done before. It's impossible with nuclear waste. I'm convinced that future generations will hate us forever. And all those politicians and engeneers that invented and allowed it will be rated as criminals in the same league as dictators and terrorists. It's all so sad...... |
| tcc 13.03.2011 23:41 |
In our neigbouring country, the readers gave a newspaper hell when they published a cartoon showing ultraman running away from a tsunami. |
| john bodega 14.03.2011 02:26 |
3 seats left on my rocket to Mars, anyone interested? |
| YourValentine 14.03.2011 05:13 |
It must be horrible for the people to be kept in the dark about the actual extent of the damage after a second reactor building has exploded. There is no way to go - where should millions and millions of people evacuate? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.03.2011 06:33 |
>>>> YourValentine wrote: It must be horrible for the people to be kept in the dark about the actual extent of the damage after a second reactor building has exploded. There is no way to go - where should millions and millions of people evacuate? <<<< ======= It's unimaginable. Now they've said yet another reactor's cooling system has failed. And, last I read, radiation has been measured in a 60-mile radius from one of them. They keep calling it 'low levels' as if to imply it's safe. Why would a country where earthquakes (not 8.9, of course) are so common have nuclear reactors in the first place? If there's need and opportunity for alternative energy innovation, it's in Japan. And by 'alternative', I mean safe and stable as well as clean and renewable. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.03.2011 06:44 |
YourValentine wrote: It must be horrible for the people to be kept in the dark about the actual extent of the damage after a second reactor building has exploded. There is no way to go - where should millions and millions of people evacuate? ==== And that's not even taking into account the fact that the reactor that blew up last night, Fukishima 1 - 3, was a plutonium-reactor, meaning the radiation hazard is far higher. What the Japanese government isn't telling the people - and surprisingly most international media are following them in that sense - is that the release of hydrogen resulting from the explosions in the reactor-buildings also involves radioactive release - the hydrogen gas was formed under high pressure in or near the reactor. Considering the way hydrogen responds to high pressure and radiation, significant amounts of tritium and some quadrium, the two radioactive isotopes of hydrogen, have been released into the atmosphere. Tritium has a half-life of 12.32 years, and sends out bèta radiation. Quadrium will have been released in smaller quantities and has a much shorter half-life (only a fraction of a second), but compensates for that by sending out *neutrons*. So, during the actual explosion, neutrons will have been released, and bèta radiation will remain for years (with this type of radiation being absorbed by plants and animals it is very likely to enter the food supply through fish and food crops). Meanwhile, a US aircraft carrier has detected radiation more than 100 miles from the Japanese shore. The only realistic news coverage I've been getting so far is from the Belgian media, who don't just repeat what the Japanese government is saying, but now report serious contamination and a nuclear disaster second only to Tchernobyl. |
| GratefulFan 14.03.2011 10:24 |
It's frightening, but I think all the catastrophizing is premature. As far as the wider public goes, this appears much closer to Three Mile Island than Chernobyl at this point, and you have to remember that it's not like we live in a radiation free bubble even without man made nuclear disasters. That said, I feel immensely for plant workers who are apparently showing signs of radiation related illness. They must be just sick with fear. Like military service or front line emergency workers it's a job with inherent risk, but probably nobody really believes it will ever be them. |
| The Real Wizard 14.03.2011 19:05 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: In the States, the discussion of cutting oil dependence ===================== They've been talking about it since Nixon. It's never gonna happen, and you yourself said it... the oil lobby is enormous. |
| GratefulFan 14.03.2011 23:59 |
Interesting and diverse live comment feed on unfolding events |
| GratefulFan 15.03.2011 00:00 |
link |
| GratefulFan 15.03.2011 00:02 |
Sorry for multiple posts and dumb format. Posting from iPad is an absurd and highly limited process. |
| YourValentine 15.03.2011 02:05 |
I cannot believe you are talking about "premature catastrophizing", GF. This accident is exactly what our polticians kept telling us would never happen. Oh yes - in the former Soviet Union a bad accident could happen because they did not have the security standards but in Japan and Europe - never. Because we have all these redundant cooling processes which simply cannot fail. Now radiation is already measured in Tokyo and it has nothing to do with the natural radiation you mention - we are talking about hazardous nuclear fission products. The scenario that a reactor explodes and the container is blown off was always called "highly speculative", oppoonents of the nuclear technology were blamed of scare tactics. Now the people in Japan have to pay a bitter, horrible price for the wrong policy of their governments. On TV Chancellor Merkel yesterday called off her (probably unconstitutional) law to prolong the running time of old reactors in light of upcoming state elections.. All of a sudden security gets the highest priority and we have to wonder why that has not been the case last week. Whoever supports nuclear power after the last days is guilty of endangering millions and millions of people. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.03.2011 08:16 |
Some two hours ago, the Dutch NOS news service interviewed professor Wim Turkenburg of Utrecht University, the leading expert on nuclear technology in the Netherlands. I am including some of the most important points he made in the eight-minute interview: - Meltdown: Reactor 2 (the one that exploded last night) had been completely dry for at least several hours, with internal temperatures over 2000 degrees Centigrade. This means it is ridiculous to assume that a meltdown has *not* occurred. I repeat: a meltdown *has* occurred. The question now is whether the molten fuel will reach critical mass again and continue to heat up, which is fortunately far from a sure thing. - Radiation: 400 milisievert per hour around the plant. On top of ordinary background radiation, the safe exposure for a normal civilian is 1 milisievert per year. For workers in the nuclear industry the absolute maximum that may not be exceeded is 50 milisievert per year. Radiation levels in Tokio are easily high enough to be considered dangerous. - Danger to employees: the people (about 50) still working at Fukishima are, in his words "heroes". He added that they are almost certainly going to die. |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.03.2011 08:26 |
****UPDATE**** The International Atomic Energy Agency has just announced, through André-Claude Lacoste, director of the French ASN, that the Fukishima I Nuclear Power Plant disaster has been upgraded from 4 to 6 on the INES-scale (link This is *extremely serious*. It suggests that something really terrible is about to happen. It is likely that all remaining workers will have to be evacuated, meaning nothing further can be done to prevent disasters. Level 6 on the INES scale is virtually unprecedented: the only Level 6 ever to occur was the Kyshtym disaster in the Soviet Union in 1957 (link. Until today, that was ranked as the second worst nuclear disaster ever to happen, second only to Tchernobyl. |
| YourValentine 15.03.2011 08:53 |
It's just out of control, a terribile nightmare. Millions of people in danger and this time we cannot close our eyes - it is live on TV. Not like the pre-internet (and cold-war) days of Chernobyl where 7 million people are still live in highly contaminated areas. Areas where hardly any children are healthy. |
| GratefulFan 15.03.2011 09:02 |
YourValentine wrote: I cannot believe you are talking about "premature catastrophizing", GF. This accident is exactly what our polticians kept telling us would never happen. Oh yes - in the former Soviet Union a bad accident could happen because they did not have the security standards but in Japan and Europe - never. Because we have all these redundant cooling processes which simply cannot fail. Now radiation is already measured in Tokyo and it has nothing to do with the natural radiation you mention - we are talking about hazardous nuclear fission products. The scenario that a reactor explodes and the container is blown off was always called "highly speculative", oppoonents of the nuclear technology were blamed of scare tactics. Now the people in Japan have to pay a bitter, horrible price for the wrong policy of their governments. On TV Chancellor Merkel yesterday called off her (probably unconstitutional) law to prolong the running time of old reactors in light of upcoming state elections.. All of a sudden security gets the highest priority and we have to wonder why that has not been the case last week. Whoever supports nuclear power after the last days is guilty of endangering millions and millions of people. ========================= I'm not trying to minimize events YV, I just like facts. It's been a generation since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and whether you think it's complacency or reality that has isolated those events from global nuclear energy policy, the fact is most of us live in a nuclear world that is quietly humming along. One consequence of that is that the press is largely unprepared to properly parse the data coming out of Japan, so amid the competetive pressure for constant news and compelling headlines they collectively throw out streams of largely meaningless relative numbers and repeat hours old assessments as breaking news. Radiation '10 times normal' means *nothing* without context and absolute numbers. A temporary spike in radiation capable of harming human health at the gate of the plant means nothing to Tokyo if it is not sustained. 'Natural radiation' is not a synonym for granola. There is significant biological tolerance for ranges of exposure far greater than any of the absolute figures published outside the immediate evacuated radius of the plant at this time. Clearly this may become a nightmarish scenario, but it's no service to the Japanese people to make it one in the press and global chatter before it is. In fact, it's extraordinarily cruel given their particular history. Cool heads make the best decisions. We can certainly agree that it is absurd for politicians to be writing nuclear policy on the fly in the middle of an unfolding black swan nuclear crisis half a world away, but we'd likely agree for different reasons. |
| GratefulFan 15.03.2011 09:09 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: ****UPDATE**** The International Atomic Energy Agency has just announced, through André-Claude Lacoste, director of the French ASN, that the Fukishima I Nuclear Power Plant disaster has been upgraded from 4 to 6 on the INES-scale (link This is *extremely serious*. It suggests that something really terrible is about to happen. It is likely that all remaining workers will have to be evacuated, meaning nothing further can be done to prevent disasters. Level 6 on the INES scale is virtually unprecedented: the only Level 6 ever to occur was the Kyshtym disaster in the Soviet Union in 1957 (link. Until today, that was ranked as the second worst nuclear disaster ever to happen, second only to Tchernobyl. ============================= That was not an IAEA announcement as far as I know. It was an independent French assessment. Yesterday they estimated it at a 'five or a six' (Japan has assigned a value of 4 previously). Today they're calling it a more solid six. Chernobyl was a 7, and Three Mile Island was a 5. There was no impact on human health in the Three Mile Island event, so that relativism needs to be understood in context. 'Second only to Chernobyl' means about as much now as 'just slightly ahead of Three Mile Island'. Again, I'm not trying to minimize the events or their real world and psychological impact, but you're ahead of yourselves. The whole thing could utterly implode in 15 minutes, and you still would have been ahead of yourself right now. |
| YourValentine 15.03.2011 15:21 |
I really do not want to be impolite, GF because I do respect you but you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. There is an ongoing meltdown in two reactors. The crew has left the plant to escape the deadly radiation. The radiation at the moment is 400 times the allowed ANNUAL radiation, it is lethal. In acts of sheer desparation the left 50 technicians try to cool down the melting reactors from helicopters with sea water - how they can stop the process when 750 technicians could not do it yesterday is everybody's guess. Each of the melting reactors contains 20 times as much reactor fuel as did the Chernobyl reactor, i.e. 20 times as much radiation can escape into the environment - the catastrophe will be much worse than Chernobyl. The radiation has already spread over the Tokyo area, which means that over 30 million people(!!) are in very urgent danger of contamination. I do not want to elaborate about the possible consequences, everybody can imagine what might happen. This is the worst catastrophe that ever happened to any country, the effects will last decades to come, maybe centuries. Today Germany switched off the 7 oldest reactors in the country. The people of Germany will make sure that they won't return, I am very sure about that and we will make sure that nuclear energy will be ended in our country as soon as possible. It's not because we are a bunch of paranoid idiots, we just see what is happening and there must be an end to this insanity. |
| GratefulFan 15.03.2011 15:28 |
I have every clue about what I'm talking about. We simply disagree about what the imminent dangers are given the current facts on the ground. That all may change. I'm sure we can both agree that we desperately hope for the best for the Japanese people. |
| ParisNair 15.03.2011 15:33 |
I feel for the Japanese, I really do. Of all the peoples in the world, why they have to suffer like this, I cannot understand. A peaceful, friendly people and culture. Come to think of it, I don't wish such thing to happen even to Pakistanis, who I really hate. Any amount of empathy, sympathy, medical and financial aid is of no use in what has happened/is happening there. The people will have to suffer for generations. Japan, of all countries....:-( |
| YourValentine 16.03.2011 01:39 |
GratefulFan wrote: I have every clue about what I'm talking about. We simply disagree about what the imminent dangers are given the current facts on the ground. That all may change. I'm sure we can both agree that we desperately hope for the best for the Japanese people. Yes, we agree about that. I just happen to believe that it does not help the people of Japan if we do not call a nuclear meltdown a nuclear meltdown and if we do not call a catastrophe a catastrophe. Lies and euphemisms have lead us to the situation that in so many industrialized countries people have been kept in the dark about the danger of nuclear power. If TEPCO had not been allowed to lie to the Japanese people the way they did - maybe Japan would have changed their energy politics years ago? It may be very late for the Japanese people but it is not too late for Europe and other industrialized countries. They tell us that we cannot "abuse" the catastrophe in Japan to promote anti-nuclear actions but that is just the cynical way of the lobbyists to lay the blame somewhere else. I read on the internet - and I do not know if it's true - that the IAEA does not even use the word "meltdown" to describe the biggest possible accident anywhere in their writings and that President Obama recently called an energy mix containing nuclear energy and even coal "clean energy". There must be an end to this "nukespeak". Right now we see the reactors exploding on our TV screens and people all of a sudden realize that "residual risk" may well mean the total destruction of their homeland - not only for themselves but for generations to come. |
| GratefulFan 16.03.2011 09:48 |
Expecting the IAEA to use the word 'meltdown' in their formal writings is like expecting WHO to use the word 'pukey'. It's an informal and imprecise word that is not appropriate for that level of discourse. As I wrote earlier, the middle of an unfolding crisis with an uncertain end is not in my opinion the right mental and emotional climate for discussion and decisions (!) on energy policy. |
| thomasquinn 32989 16.03.2011 10:00 |
I find the announcement by the company that owns and operates the Fukushima plant that 70% of fuel rods in Reactor 1 and about 33% of the fuel rods in Reactor 2 are damaged direct and explicit enough. |
| Donna13 16.03.2011 10:58 |
I guess it is the simple things that can bring down a system. The fact that they had the backup generators in the basement of this complex even though they are at the edge of the ocean and everyone knows that a tsunami is possible and even expected eventually in an area with a lot of potential for big earthquakes ... that is a surprisingly simple mistake they made. It reminds me of the heat shield tile breaking off of the shuttle and nobody bothering to check on that prior to reentry. Or the o-ring - some engineers were concerned that it might fail at low temperatures, but nothing was done in time to stop the launch. Or how about the Toyota floor mats? |
| The Real Wizard 16.03.2011 11:24 |
Have a look at this link - link Thoughts .. ? |
| Mr Mercury 16.03.2011 13:20 |
Unbelievable!! These Scots rescuers were prevented from doing their job by bureaucratic lunacy........ link |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 16.03.2011 13:43 |
^dont you wish that the reactors were encased in the same red tape as beauracracy..? :-p [even if i cant spell it] |
| YourValentine 17.03.2011 03:37 |
A very interesting essay, Bob but unfortunately we are 3 explosions and 2 fires beyond the statements in this essay - like for example the statement that the radiation from the reactors is not dangerous or the statement that the plant is "safe now and will stay safe". Maybe if the Japanese people are lucky and the very worst can still be prevented - if the power supply will be built in time, if the army manages to cool the reactors from the air or from the ground, if the wind blows the radiation to the ocean and not to Tokyo...we can only hope. What Donna says is very interesting : yes in the cases of Challenger and Columbia risks were taken because the public interest was so big and a further delay was unwanted (Challenger) or because the problem was so old that NASA believed it would not cause a real threat to a mission because nothing happened in the previous flights (Columbia). Of course in both cases money was an issue - mainly in the Columbia flight. The big difference is that nobody is forced to fly in a space shuttle and that - although it was a terrible and heartbraking catastrophe in both cases - no outsiders were hurt in the process. In a nuclear accident, however, a whole population and unknown future generations can be harmed for centuries to come. It is no coincidence that most nuclear plants are built near the borders hoping that the neighbour is hurt and not the own people in case of an accident. Nobody should have the right to run such a dangerous technology. There is simply no protection against radioactive contamination with all the horrible results. I would not say anything against the risk if there were no alternatives but there are. Modern societies do not need nuclear energy, a modern de-centralized energy net with renewable energy sources can replace all the old nuclear plants in very short time, it's just a question of decision. In the news they said that China wants to postpone their plans to build new nuclear plants - who would have expected that! |
| john bodega 17.03.2011 11:09 |
Nuclear just isn't a great solution, period. We treat it as long-term because uranium supplies and what-not would be able to see us just beyond our lifespans. After that, who cares - right? Pretty unacceptable if you ask me - critics of switching over to renewable energy are living in the 1920's if they think that money can't be made from it. It would show true enterprise if they would lead the way themselves, have a monopoly on all that green shit. |
| GratefulFan 17.03.2011 11:11 |
YourValentine wrote: In the news they said that China wants to postpone their plans to build new nuclear plants - who would have expected that! ================= Yes, brilliant response from various points around the globe. Let's do fail to replace 40 year old nuclear technology with better and safer reactors. |
| GratefulFan 17.03.2011 11:23 |
Donna13 wrote: I guess it is the simple things that can bring down a system. The fact that they had the backup generators in the basement of this complex even though they are at the edge of the ocean and everyone knows that a tsunami is possible and even expected eventually in an area with a lot of potential for big earthquakes ... that is a surprisingly simple mistake they made. It reminds me of the heat shield tile breaking off of the shuttle and nobody bothering to check on that prior to reentry. Or the o-ring - some engineers were concerned that it might fail at low temperatures, but nothing was done in time to stop the launch. Or how about the Toyota floor mats? ======================== Though it's not completely clear from what I've read, I think the basement generators may have survived but all but one of their fuel tanks at ground level were swept away by the tsunami. Elevate the generators and make them potentially vulnerable to a large earthquake, or build them underground? I think they were in a bit of catch 22 situation given their geography/geology, though the engineering clearly critically underestimated the effects of a powerful tsunami. With regard to your interesting larger point about simple points of failure, I wonder how much of that is a bit deceptive? Muddied perhaps by the 20/20 nature of hindsight and the fact that any complex system is really just a collection of hundreds or thousands of interdependent simple things. |
| GratefulFan 17.03.2011 11:28 |
YourValentine wrote: It is no coincidence that most nuclear plants are built near the borders hoping that the neighbour is hurt and not the own people in case of an accident. ========================= I think that may be a bit unfair. Nuclear plants are ideally built on large bodies of water for obvious reasons, which are also often border areas, for equally obvious reasons. |
| Holly2003 17.03.2011 17:54 |
It seems some cold water has been poured onto the problem tonight, and the possibility of an explosive release has been lessened --- for the moment, at least. We'll have to see how that develops though, and I wouldn't rule out some hairy moments over the next few days. |
| YourValentine 18.03.2011 02:07 |
GratefulFan wrote: . With regard to your interesting larger point about simple points of failure, I wonder how much of that is a bit deceptive? Muddied perhaps by the 20/20 nature of hindsight and the fact that any complex system is really just a collection of hundreds or thousands of interdependent simple things. But that is exactly the point, GFF. Space technology is probably the most advanced and innovative technology but men make decisions and evaluate situations. Even if NASA had no decided to risk a take-off in cold weather for Challenger and even if they had handled the foam burst-off before Columbia was hit there could have been other risks and unforeseen problems. Also, there is pressure from politics and powerful money interests which can lead to wrong evaluations. As long as there is man-made technology there will be failure. In the end a small piece of foam can bring down the most advanced space ship in human history. The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen. Unlike any other technology nuclear technology does not allow for any failure. If a reactor fails the consequences are so horrible that it is irresponsible to even run a nuclear power plant. Just a simple example: almost no nuclear power plant that was built before 1980 is protected against a terror attack. It is very easy to blow up the cooling system - you do not even need an airplane to run into the plant - that is what many people have in mind when they think of a terror attack. How can anybody feel safe when such a possibility which is getting more dangerous and not less dangerous does exist? In an earlier post you said that in such a state of emotions decisions about energy politics should not be made. I have to disagree and my reason is: we have to make these decisions now that we see the consequences on our TV screens or else our politicians will return to the "business as usual", i.e. telling us how safe our nuclear plants are although we have hundreds of incidents each year and the number is growing. It is not that the anti-nuclear movement has fallen from the sky since last Friday - it has existed since decades, the discussion is not new at all. We have to learn from this horrible catastrophe or else we will never have a chance to save our civilization. We cannot sacrifice the very basics of our existence to the profit of some energy monopolists who are not willing to invest into modern and renewable energy. And China did not plan to replace old reactors - they wanted to build additional plants. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 18.03.2011 06:24 |
YourValentine wrote: The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen. I applaud your entire post, YV, but this line says it all for me. Beautifully expressed. |
| GratefulFan 18.03.2011 19:38 |
YourValentine wrote: But that is exactly the point, GFF. Space technology is probably the most advanced and innovative technology but men make decisions and evaluate situations. Even if NASA had no decided to risk a take-off in cold weather for Challenger and even if they had handled the foam burst-off before Columbia was hit there could have been other risks and unforeseen problems. Also, there is pressure from politics and powerful money interests which can lead to wrong evaluations. As long as there is man-made technology there will be failure. In the end a small piece of foam can bring down the most advanced space ship in human history. The advantage of hindsight is that we can learn from mistakes, not act like failure never will happen. Unlike any other technology nuclear technology does not allow for any failure. If a reactor fails the consequences are so horrible that it is irresponsible to even run a nuclear power plant. Just a simple example: almost no nuclear power plant that was built before 1980 is protected against a terror attack. It is very easy to blow up the cooling system - you do not even need an airplane to run into the plant - that is what many people have in mind when they think of a terror attack. How can anybody feel safe when such a possibility which is getting more dangerous and not less dangerous does exist? In an earlier post you said that in such a state of emotions decisions about energy politics should not be made. I have to disagree and my reason is: we have to make these decisions now that we see the consequences on our TV screens or else our politicians will return to the "business as usual", i.e. telling us how safe our nuclear plants are although we have hundreds of incidents each year and the number is growing. It is not that the anti-nuclear movement has fallen from the sky since last Friday - it has existed since decades, the discussion is not new at all. We have to learn from this horrible catastrophe or else we will never have a chance to save our civilization. We cannot sacrifice the very basics of our existence to the profit of some energy monopolists who are not willing to invest into modern and renewable energy. And China did not plan to replace old reactors - they wanted to build additional plants. =============================== The human and environmental toll of nuclear energy cannot hope to be accurately perceived unless it's assessed alongside the same for the pursuit of ALL energy. You think this Japan event is a clarifying event, and my concern is that it may actually clouds the facts. A severe compromise of the integrity of a nuclear plant is extremely unsettling partly because it IS so rare and because every one is in theory a potential catastrophe. Potential. You still seem not to have considered that the Japan nuclear situation remains even this hour only a potential catastrophe. The only currently clear and tangible catastrophe is the thousands of dead and missing from the quake and tsunami, and yet everywhere one reads the focus is on this nuclear event which may yet be little more than a scary footnote in the history of nuclear energy. The most pessimistic (and heavily challenged) estimates of the people that will ultimately die or be harmed from Chernobyl are dwarfed, absolutely, thoroughly dwarfed by the numbers of people that have died in the 25 years since in industrial accidents in the energy industry, in wars directly or indirectly related to the oil industry and through illness related to fossil fuel air pollution. Look at the numbers for the latter in particular. They are shocking. I find it difficult to think of nuclear plants as fundamentally unsafe. 25 years since Chernobyl and 31 since Three Mile Island, and the scope of the former is largely seen as an outlier due to the complete lack of any containment vessel and the emphasis on secrecy in the early handling of the crisis. In the case of Japan, we've had a once every 20 years magnitude earthquake, a massive tsunami, 40 year old nuke technology, a good share of human error and boneheaded mistakes made by heroes forced to be playing whack-a-mole in the dark in a nuclear plant with no power to it, and WE ARE STILL HANGING IN THERE. How can you possibly say that "nuclear technology does not allow for any failure"? Most of all, the risk of harmful radiation outside the immediate area of the plant given the precise circumstances of this plant and this accident has from the beginning been exaggerated and misunderstood. Clearly the ultimate goal is the green energy you reference, but until we are there, nuclear can and will and should be a part of the mix. Instead we have politicians making partly self interested decisions that will at best delay the replacement of old plants with new ones, and at worst run old ones to the ground and potentially to some new ugly, thoroughly preventable nuclear incident. The assumption is that advances in green energy are solely or mostly held up by oil lobbies but the fact that the industry is still nascent in a relative sense is part of the issue as well. If living beside the United States informs one on anything, it's the power of the almighty market. A good, workable green solution will rise and will work and will be adopted because someone will find a way to make money out of it. There are a slew of obscenely rich people in the world and investors can almost always be found for good ideas. We've made mistakes in the pursuit of green energy already, with things like fuel from corn and such, and that industry was heavily, heavily subsidized, so it's simply not just about big oil holding the purse strings. Personally I think a good first step would be to double or triple the price of gas in North America. In my opinion cheap energy more than anything informs what is frankly an often wasteful and self indulgent culture. And I include myself in that assessment. I can't seem to get in my car without putting 50 kilometers on it because I love driving around and listening to music as a temporary escape from regular duties and responsibilities and expectations. I do it all the time. In the winter I often take two long, hot, uninterrupted showers a day (or one shower and one bath) - one to get clean in the morning and one to warm up and feel nice before I go to bed. I understand I'd be killed or something if I tried that in Germany. ;) It's a lovely existence to be so few in such a huge, resource rich land full of fresh air and fresh water and green trees at almost every turn, but it distorts reality and almost everybody is vulnerable to energy apathy. |
| GratefulFan 18.03.2011 19:44 |
Just a quick afterthought: People hear nuclear and they automatically think 'uncontrolled release of energy'. Despite the fundamental scientific error in that, am I alone in thinking it's kind of awesome, in the biblical sense, anyway? One can only marvel at the sudden conversion of relatively stable and benign elements to some critical mass that creates a reaction so inherently resistant to being stopped and whose momentum is almost always so relententlessly forward that sometimes the only thing to do in situations that are dangerous is to bury it in sand and concrete and silence and try to forget it's there. Maybe it's just the science geek in me, but I can't help but be a little awed by that. Just a week out and with terrible headlines everywhere I still think you could find one or two honest Japanese people who would acknowledge missing that downed plant a little already. Ironically, despite the challenges and the loss of that resource Japan is likely to remain a nuclear powerhouse for the forseeable future. Even now people are turning to the Japanese and will likely continue turning Japanese for expertise and solutions, for some time to come. |
| YourValentine 19.03.2011 09:19 |
GratefulFan wrote: "I can't seem to get in my car without putting 50 kilometers on it because I love driving around and listening to music as a temporary escape from regular duties and responsibilities and expectations. I do it all the time. In the winter I often take two long, hot, uninterrupted showers a day (or one shower and one bath) - one to get clean in the morning and one to warm up and feel nice before I go to bed. I understand I'd be killed or something if I tried that in Germany. ;) It's a lovely existence to be so few in such a huge, resource rich land full of fresh air and fresh water and green trees at almost every turn, but it distorts reality and almost everybody is vulnerable to energy apathy. " ==== I really try not to allow myself to get personal in such discussions but this upsets me greatly. You can thank God (or fate or coincidence) every day that you were not born a First Nation Canadian in Alberta. That your water is not contaminated and your land is not destroyed by oil sand strip mining. That your fish and deer are not poisoned and your kids do not die of cancer as a result of the incredible pollution. That your rich land and green trees have not been turned into black, hostile, poisonous waste land. But probably there is no scientific proof that all this is a result of oil sand mining? Certainly more people must have died of age than of cancer due to pollution over the centuries? Certainly we must see the bigger picture and wait until the scientific results are available in 100 years? Let us not get to premature conclusions hat might disturb our sleep walking! Back to the topic: I am not going to count the victims of the eartquake and Tsunami against the victims of the nuclear catastrophe or potential nuclear catastrophe. Or compare the number of still suffering Chernobyl victims to victims of other tragedies - that is just shameful. I wish you are right and the worst can be prevented but I have very little hope considerating that radiation has already been detected in Tokyo's drinking water. The reason why the international focus is on the nuclear situation is that earthquake and tsunami cannot be prevented. We can help as much as we can but we cannot blame the earth for creating earthquakes and tsunamis. Nuclear technology, on the other hand, is man-made and we would not be responsible human beings using our brains if we would not try to avoid such horrible disasters which are in fact much worse than any other energy casualties because the affected areas are inhabitable for centuries. Even in the above mentioned strip mining areas nature could return if the government would make it a law that the companies must rebuild the landscape and cannot just poison the water but a nuclear accident affects the very fundaments of our existence for an unmeasurable time. Apparently, it is very hard for the apologists of nuclear power to actually understand the extent of the possible consequences. I never said that oil lobbies hold up the development of renewable energy systems. Electric power is usually not won from oil, at least not in Europe. The "dirty" energy plants are the coal plants. Also, I do not think that any lobby should hold up any progress in a democracy and it is exactly NOT the market that determines decisions, it's energy monopolists and corrupt politicians who put the interests of the monopolists over the interests of the population. If there is no market I wonder why the solar and wind energy technology is such an export hit and wanted by so many countries. I always find it funny that people in North America think their fuel is cheap because they only pay a fourth of the price Europeans pay. But Europeans (at least in the "old Europe") do not pay for the Iraq war, they do not pay for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the loss of nature in Alberta. In the same way we do not want to pay for the extreme costs of nuclear waste management, cancer treatment, security measures. Last week a survey in Germany showed that 78% of the citizens want the nuclear plants gone as soon as possible and 76% were ready to pay a higher price for renewable energy. At least we will get what we pay for. |
| *goodco* 19.03.2011 15:40 |
Simply looked up info on Cook Nuclear plant in Michigan (link, that I visited as an 8th grader eons ago. What a lovely place per its website. Scroll down to near the bottom and click their pdf 'in case of emergency' link. I could point out hundreds of holes in their system. Also, I'd guess some of their comments were based on a 'short term' problem. Japan's will last how long? And to what degree? What are they going to do with all the contaminated soil and materials? We're not talking a square mile or kilometers worth, after all. The tsunami damage was/is bad enough. I don't have the link, but the short video I saw of an orphaned 8 year old being reunited with her dog, and laying next to it at a shelter, ............,......tugged hard at my soul. |
| GratefulFan 20.03.2011 17:57 |
YourValentine wrote: I really try not to allow myself to get personal in such discussions but this upsets me greatly. You can thank God (or fate or coincidence) every day that you were not born a First Nation Canadian in Alberta. That your water is not contaminated and your land is not destroyed by oil sand strip mining. That your fish and deer are not poisoned and your kids do not die of cancer as a result of the incredible pollution. That your rich land and green trees have not been turned into black, hostile, poisonous waste land. ==================================== Oh boy Barb, no way for you to know, but are you ever barking up the wrong dead tree here. I was born in 1967, and in 1971 Apollo astronauts came to the city I grew up in to train because of the presence of unique rock formations called shatter cones. That was the fact, but the enduring myth (as in still enduring today in many quarters) is that they came because my city was a desolate wasteland that looked like the surface of the moon. Years of destructive mining practices ravaged many parts of the city through smelting practices that led to fallout and acid rain, and complete deforestation occurred in some areas. Canadian Shield geography consists of a thin layer of soil on top of rock formations, and the deforestation caused erosion of what little soil there was, leaving behind only rock that was burned black as pitch by whatever was in the air and the rain. And I mean black. I think I was a teenager before I even noticed that all rock wasn't black, once enough of it was blasted out for new construction. I recall playing 'Nadia Comaneci' during the Montreal Olympics in 1976 on a little hill in my backyard. I can't believe we didn't kill ourselves, or at the very least split our skulls open, but it was normal for us for rocks to be our playground. Black rocks and scrubby little plants (blueberries! yum!) and spindly little trees that could survive in the highly acid soil was the immediate environment of my early life. We swam for hours in local lakes that presumably had the same crap that turned the rocks black, but as children we didn't know to care, so we simply didn't. In a generation, it's all different. The city has undergone a United Nations recognized reclamation effort that has been described as "a landscape devastated and then transformed into a Canadian environmental success story, inspiring communities to improve their environment through the rehabilitation of air, water and land, resulting in a positive image for a damaged ecosystem". Today it looks just like any other small city, which is to say ugly, average or beautiful depending on where you are looking at any given moment. The regreening outside the immediate city limits continues today. For me, they've almost taken it too far in spots. The black slag heaps of the waste products of nickel mining that ring one end of the city were until recently rows of impossibly long banks of black rocks that looked starkly beautiful (to me) against the oranges and blues of sunset and twilight. Now they've added lime and soil and they're covered in grasses and are colloquially referred to locally as 'Dublin'. So I know first hand about dirty industry, it's impact, and how it is turned around. I would rather have a nuclear plant in my backyard, like right in my backyard as long as I can keep my maple trees, than have projects like the oil sands three provinces away. The emissions of oil sand production are comparable to coal. Unreasonably vilifying nuclear energy on emotion is as good as flying to Alberta yourself and personally shovelling a few loads of toxic sludge into the Athabasca River. ================================== YourValentine wrote: Back to the topic: I am not going to count the victims of the eartquake and Tsunami against the victims of the nuclear catastrophe or potential nuclear catastrophe. Or compare the number of still suffering Chernobyl victims to victims of other tragedies - that is just shameful. =================================== No, you don't get to turn my point about the relative human and environmental cost of each energy option into rhetoric. If pursing fossil fuel for human energy needs kills magnitudes more people than nuclear energy could ever hope to in 50 Chernobyls, that is a fact that needs to be factored into energy policy. Radiation is a potentially carcinogenic industrial contaminant that is released in potentially troublesome quantities every 20 or 30 years, where dirty fossil fuel waste products are released every moment. We don't yet know how Fukushima will turn out, but I know that calling a crisis a catastrophe doesn't to me indicate a balanced, fact based view. A crisis may become a catastrophe of course. Yes there has been radiation detected in Japanese food and water supply, but that is as expected as it is frightening to people. At those levels broad harm to health is so completely unlikely. Marie Curie literally carried radium around in her pocket for years and used to write about how it gave off pretty light in her drawer at night. I've read that her papers from the late 1800's are still too hot to be handled without protective equipment, though I don't know if that's true. She died from radiation all right, 40 years later when she got anemia. Radiation must be respected, clearly, but most of the public fears are so wildly off the reality that I really hope what 78% of Germans (or Canadians, or anybody else) think is given it's proper perspective by the people who are ultimately making the decisions. The fear however will work for us as a society because nuclear operators will be always be driven to greater and greater improvements and safety mechanisms, knowing the industry is so vulnerable to public opinion and political realities. When you're down to calling people 'apologists' I do think you've lost some of your objectivity. The corporations are pulling one way, the environmentalists are pulling the other way, and somewhere in the middle is the truth. I kind of like the truth, though I'll grant that for me at least there is a sometimes difficult sacrifice of idealism and simplicity for reality and complexity. |
| YourValentine 21.03.2011 03:06 |
Well good for you, that your landscape was rebuilt, GFF, I am really glad. If it had been a nuclear accident rebuilding would not have been possible - that is the whole difference you choose to ignore in the discussion. You would prefer nuclear plants over coal plants but I want renewable energy rather than nuclear plants. Coal is the energy of the 19th century, renewable energy is the energy of the 21st century. You suggest that anti-nuclear activists are paranoid, emotion-driven and ignore the facts. With the same right I can say that the pro-nuclear supporters ignore the facts. You mention Marie Curie and that she lived to be 70+ although she was exposed to radiation but that is like the grandfather who smoked all his life and died peacefully at the age of 90. You would not say that smoking is not dangerous because Grandpa did not die of cancer, right ? Instead of Marie Curie you could have picked the "Radium Girls" who were exposed to radium as well but they did get anemia and cancer, And in the same way as in all other cases the industry who made the money out of it tried to hide and supress the facts and lied. Like for example in Chernobyl where 59 victims were officially recognized but in fact there were thousands who died. Hundred thousands who became ill of cancer, thousands of children who were born with severe genetic effects. Hundreds of the so-called lquidators who were sent in to seal the plant and got cancer later were denied social security because they could not "prove" that the illness is related to the liquidation although the radiation-related illnesses are well documented and there is no doubt about cause and effect. Probably it is overly emotional and idealistic to have sympathy for the victims of Chernobyl - just not grabbing the the complexity of the situation. It needs the rationality of the decision makers who happen to be lobbyists to make the correct decisions for the stupid masses who are just unable to evaluate the issue correctly. After all, that is the idea of a democracy: you would not ask Tom, Dick and Harry who have nothing to lose except their stupid lives, anyway. Scientists who do not work for the nuclear industry must be paranoid idiots by nature, as well. |
| YourValentine 21.03.2011 03:36 |
Let me add something about the special situation in Germany because I read a lot about the "German Angst" when it comes to nuclear energy. It is true that we have a tradition of anti-nuclear movements and it became very strong after Chernobyl. After Chernoby we always had a majority in the country who was against nuclear energy. In the year 2000 we already had an exit strategy. The red-green government managed to make a compromise with the nuclear industry and issued a law to limit the running time of all nuclear plants until the year 2020, older plants would have been closed as early as 2011. As a result the investment into publicly funded renewable energy roared and private citizens as well as communities and industry put billions into the new technology. Renewable energy technology became the biggest export hit in German history since the VW beetle. Protests and civil-war like rallies against waste transport in the country stopped, there was a big consensus. Unfortunately, the new government took back this law just months ago in an unprecedented move, disregarding the constitutional rights of the state governments who did not approve. Claiming that the country would not have enough energy if the law prevailed Chancellor Merkel just ditched the compromise in favour of the profits of the four big energy companies in the country. That is the only reason for our government to switch off the old plants for three months after the accident in Japan. They just cannot hide the fact that they put the profit of four energy companies higher than the public good. Switching off the old plants was an act of sheer panic with no legal grounds just hoping that people will forget and not vote them all out of office. We have hope that the Supreme Court will rule that the government acted against the constitution and that the red-green exit law will prevail. If this happens the world can watch and see if it is possible to run an industrial country with renewable energy. After all, we are still an industrial country and not just a financial playgound for the banks. Progress is the advancement of newer and better technology and not being held back by the interests of a few. For Japan I can only hope it does not get worse before it gets better. In the long run they will change their policy, as well. It is not a question if it can be done, just a question if it is wanted. |
| GratefulFan 23.03.2011 13:03 |
YourValentine wrote: Well good for you, that your landscape was rebuilt, GFF, I am really glad. If it had been a nuclear accident rebuilding would not have been possible - that is the whole difference you choose to ignore in the discussion. You would prefer nuclear plants over coal plants but I want renewable energy rather than nuclear plants. Coal is the energy of the 19th century, renewable energy is the energy of the 21st century. ============================ No, if it had been a catastrophic nuclear accident rebuilding would not have been possible. Of the approximately 21,000 days that the world has been in some part powered by nuclear technology, ONE of those days saw a catastrophic nuclear accident. And that is what you are ignoring. Chernobyl was horrible, and still is, and I should have acknowledged a few posts ago that your proximity to that event of course contributes to your position both intellectually and psychologically. I do understand, because a nuclear accident is incredibly vivid and emotional. But making a generalization - that the technology is wholly unacceptable on it's face - based on an incredibly rare event - just does not stand up to scrutiny. In more common terms it's like calling for the end of flight because of a plane crash. That would not be seen as a reasonable response, and neither should any similar response on the nuclear front. If vilifing nuclear had no cost, I'd be unlikely to even be talking about this with you. But that is not the case. A big name environmental activist in the UK begged people not to abandon nuclear in the wake of this event saying "Even when nuclear power plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally....Abandoning nuclear power as an option narrows our choices just when we need to be thinking as broadly as possible.” I don't think anybody wants nuclear energy in the long run, on the presumption that we will be able to displace it with green tech, but you're doing the equivalent of yelling for everybody to ditch their cassette tapes in 1981 and calling people cassette apologists. Emerging CD technology was exciting and clearly the future, but it took years for everybody and everything to catch up. There is great value in green activists pushing on the political front and on the public information front, and generally doing everything they can to eliminate the human factors that prevent the most rapid development of green tech possible. But there is great harm when that same conviction is used to vilify nuclear power to the point that decades old technology is failing to get replaced with newer and safer tech, safer dry cask spent fuel storage initiatives are being blocked, coal continues to pump the most reprehensible garbage into the air every minute of every day, and the progress of the developing world is threatened. That's too much of a price too sooth what are essentially somebody's ideological tailfeathers. ============================= YourValentine wrote: You suggest that anti-nuclear activists are paranoid, emotion-driven and ignore the facts. With the same right I can say that the pro-nuclear supporters ignore the facts. You mention Marie Curie and that she lived to be 70+ although she was exposed to radiation but that is like the grandfather who smoked all his life and died peacefully at the age of 90. You would not say that smoking is not dangerous because Grandpa did not die of cancer, right ? Instead of Marie Curie you could have picked the "Radium Girls" who were exposed to radium as well but they did get anemia and cancer, And in the same way as in all other cases the industry who made the money out of it tried to hide and supress the facts and lied. ================================ No, I suggested that unreasonably vilifying nuclear energy on emotion that contradicts facts was irresponsible. The key words there being 'unreasonably' and 'irresponsible'. Emotion should of course contribute to human decisions, but emotion should be a witness, not judge and jury. I mentioned Curie only in reference to your conclusion that you didn't think things were going to turn out well because radiation was discovered in Tokyo water. We are exposed all the time, voluntarily and involuntarily, to radiation. The amount first found on the spinach was equivalent to one chest x-ray if eaten for five years. The water would have had to have been consumed for one year. Both Curie and the Radium Girls died from prolonged exposure in unusual circumstances. Those poor factory workers put radium powder right in their mouths and on their skin as a matter of course. This is not the situation in Japan, even though as human beings we can of course deeply feel their plight right now. They are in such an uncertain situation and being helplessly bombarded with radiation, no matter how slight, must be a terrible psychological burden. How frightening it must be to read about your food and water having any extra radiation in it AT ALL. But here, remote from the crisis, we have the option to be more circumspect and to help by not adding anything speculative, sensational or alarmist to the global chatter. ======================= YourValentine wrote: Like for example in Chernobyl where 59 victims were officially recognized but in fact there were thousands who died. Hundred thousands who became ill of cancer, thousands of children who were born with severe genetic effects. Hundreds of the so-called lquidators who were sent in to seal the plant and got cancer later were denied social security because they could not "prove" that the illness is related to the liquidation although the radiation-related illnesses are well documented and there is no doubt about cause and effect. Probably it is overly emotional and idealistic to have sympathy for the victims of Chernobyl - just not grabbing the the complexity of the situation. It needs the rationality of the decision makers who happen to be lobbyists to make the correct decisions for the stupid masses who are just unable to evaluate the issue correctly. After all, that is the idea of a democracy: you would not ask Tom, Dick and Harry who have nothing to lose except their stupid lives, anyway. Scientists who do not work for the nuclear industry must be paranoid idiots by nature, as well. ======================= Are we having a discussion, or are you breaking up with me? You're starting to sound like Brian May on foxes. |
| YourValentine 23.03.2011 15:18 |
Brian May has the habit to call people names if they do not agree with him - I would prefer not to be compared with him. I am not quite sure if you are serious in your posting. Yes, I happen to think that it is not a good thing when your drinking water is contaminated with radioactive substances. Actually, the WHO and IAEA happen to think the same and I am not irrational or irresponsible in my arguments at all. I also do not believe that arguing against nuclear power plants adds anything bad to the situation of the affected Japanese population - I happen to think that there is an actual danger for the health of these people and it is not just some irrational fear - there is an actual, measurable danger. The danger does not come from scaremongers in Europe - the danger comes from the nuclear plant and not from anywhere else. Please visit the IAEA website and look up the values, I am getting tired of trying to argue the obvious. I never said that all nuclear power plants must be switched off tomorrow, that is ridiculous. It has been a "bridge technology" from the coal age to the renewable energy age. Therefore the UK activist you quoted does not really need to convince me. Nobody wants to replace nuclear plants with coal plants, that would totally work against any climate protection goals. I am arguing in favour of an exit strategy and for a common national and European effort to make it possible to shut down all nuclear power plants in a foreseeable future. There are many ways to help this goal - new energy-saving technology, solar and wind energy, biomass plants for basic loads etc. I do not believe that developing countries would be harmed if we close nuclear plants in Europe. Developing countries cannot feed their energy hunger with only nuclear plants because it will take decades to build enough plants and there is simply not enough uranium on this planet to run all these plants until they are cost-effective. Of course, it would be a huge loss for the European nuclear industry if the developing countries chose to introduce renewable energy technology - which they will do in addition to their nuclear plants, anyway. Yes, I think the risk is too high and the risk alone should be a reason to close all nuclear plants asap. An official risk study in my country says that there is 0,1% risk that a so-called MCA happens in a nuclear plant per 40 years running time. With 150 plants in Europe that would be a 16% risk in 40 years and world wide a 40% risk in 40 years. When you think about it, is is not that small, after all. You meantioned airplanes - only one passenger plane crashes per 100 000 flight hours. Since there are so many you have still a serious plane crash almost each year but the huge difference is that the plane crash is a local event and the crash site is not contaminated for generations to come. That is apparently the crucial point where nuclear power supporters cannot agree: nobody has the right to destroy whole landscapes for centuries. |
| GratefulFan 24.03.2011 15:21 |
No strength to argue just now, but wanted to share a couple of shots of my black rocks. No point here, just happened that earlier I walked by a good example of of the striated effect of 'healthy rock' (ha ha) cut out of the pollution scarred rock. Rocks are not that exciting I guess, but I had mentioned it and it isn't something you see everyday I suppose. So, without further ado, my rocks! link |
| *goodco* 28.03.2011 17:09 |
Well, no one talks about all the various coal mine slurry containers that break and contaminate low-lying valleys, place their employees in constant danger...because it is constant and 'mundane' to the news. I am really appreciating all the 'politico-speak' from the company and Japan's government. "The dangers are not IMMEDIATE." There are no "short-term health risks." What is immediate? What is short term? Two days? A week? A month? We all know that those in the nearby areas that have had their food and water affected are ....shall we say, SOL in a year or two. |
| YourValentine 29.03.2011 04:57 |
You cannot expect them to tell the public that their land and water is contaminated and they all have a 100 times higher cancer risk if they do not leave the contaminated 100 km zone. They told people to leave the 30 km zone on their own and many did - they left the old, the sick and the poor behind. In some places there is no food to buy, no water to drink, no doctor to look after the patients. Truck drivers refuse to drive into the contaminated areas because they fear for their health. The government should evacuate the people but in case of evacuation they would have to provide for them which is hard to do with half a million homeless people after the earthquake. You cannot see and feel the contamination - you have to trust your government to tell you the truth. I know how much I would trust my government .... |
| thomasquinn 32989 29.03.2011 05:37 |
I cannot classify people like GratefulFan as anything other than "deliberate morons", in that they are smart enough to know better, but choose to completely ignore all that does not fit their dogma. For the record: according to the offical statement by Japan's nuclear energy agency made yesterday morning (GMT), by sunday one week ago, radiation released had equaled 20% of the release in the Tchernobyl-disaster. That is eight days ago now. Considering the fact that official estimates speak of a minimum of eight more weeks for basic repairs, we can conclude that if this trend continues, the total release of radiation y will be approximately (56/9)*0.2x with x being the Tchernobyl disaster. The result would thus be 1.24x the release of nuclear material at Tchernobyl. |
| Holly2003 29.03.2011 06:36 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I cannot classify people like GratefulFan as anything other than "deliberate morons", in that they are smart enough to know better, but choose to completely ignore all that does not fit their dogma. For the record: according to the offical statement by Japan's nuclear energy agency made yesterday morning (GMT), by sunday one week ago, radiation released had equaled 20% of the release in the Tchernobyl-disaster. That is eight days ago now. Considering the fact that official estimates speak of a minimum of eight more weeks for basic repairs, we can conclude that if this trend continues, the total release of radiation y will be approximately (56/9)*0.2x with x being the Tchernobyl disaster. The result would thus be 1.24x the release of nuclear material at Tchernobyl. ====================================================================== Talking of morons and dogma, where's that pan-European War you promised us a few years back if more power wasn't devolved from individual countries to EU parliament? And on another thread you accused me of being more right wing that someone you've seen on Fox. You were aksed to explain that but skulked off instead. I suppose not so much a case of you being moronic but simply acting like a dickhead? |
| Amazon 29.03.2011 07:49 |
My personal view is that as long as nuclear power is safer than other energy sources, I support it. However I don't have much scientific knowledge, so I will opt out of the discussion. I will say though that it is quite unusual to encounter a discussion in which it is not considered ideal to be compared to Brian. :D |
| john bodega 29.03.2011 11:29 |
Blah blah blah. Nuclear has had its day. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 29.03.2011 11:38 |
^so has sushi.. |
| GratefulFan 30.03.2011 17:32 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: I cannot classify people like GratefulFan as anything other than "deliberate morons", in that they are smart enough to know better, but choose to completely ignore all that does not fit their dogma. ========================== Yeah. Rave on, van Duff. Seeking clear facts before forming an opinion and making suppositions is called critical thinking. There's nothing dogmatic about desiring the least destructive path to the green tech future everybody wants and expects. Being anti-nuclear for the sake of being anti-nuclear is what's dogmatic. ========================== For the record: according to the offical statement by Japan's nuclear energy agency made yesterday morning (GMT), by sunday one week ago, radiation released had equaled 20% of the release in the Tchernobyl-disaster. That is eight days ago now. Considering the fact that official estimates speak of a minimum of eight more weeks for basic repairs, we can conclude that if this trend continues, the total release of radiation y will be approximately (56/9)*0.2x with x being the Tchernobyl disaster. The result would thus be 1.24x the release of nuclear material at Tchernobyl. =========================== How much radioactive material is ultimately released is of course of note, but there are multiple independent variables that mean that that alone tells one virtually nothing at this point. It may release 4 times the radioactive material of Chernobly and do 1/10 of the harm. It may release half and do twice the harm. That simply cannot be determined right now. And any assumption that the release of radioactive material is going to be linear is likely to be a dumb and useless one anyway. You might have other people fooled with your shiny syntax and your Texotic Tspellings and your general regurgitating of largely useless and reliably boring information, but you don't have me fooled. You're one of the poorest thinkers I've ever encountered on an internet forum, a fact which you attempt to hide by regularly ranting like an effing maniac. |
| YourValentine 31.03.2011 01:41 |
"Being anti-nuclear for the sake of being anti-nuclear is what's dogmatic. " I have never met anybody who was "anti-nuclear" for the heck of it. Just because they had nothing better to do than protest in the streets. In the whole world people and politicians are re-evaluating their position vs nuclear plants right now. For example, Claifornia has two nuclear plants in earthquake regions which both are not designed to withstand an earthquake that is worse than 7.0 on the Richter scale - many people in Californing are now rethinking.. We cannot ignore Fukushima - that would be totally irresponsible. What we see now in Japan is the horribly helpless way how TEPCO and the Japanese government respond to the challenge. Yesterday the opposition in the Japanese parliament finally attacked the government for not evacuating at least pregnant women from the contaminated areas. They are still in a mode of denial that will have severe consequences for the health of the affected population. In the past the anti-nuclear movement has often been accused of being paranoid, anti-technology, anti-industrial - just a bunch of spoilt kids of a rich society who have nothing better to do than to dream about a pre-industrial world which has no connection to reality at all. However, it was the anti-nuclear movement which pushed and pushed towards research and development of technologies that are not so harmful and not so dangerous. If the suffering of the Japanese people were not so heart breaking we would say "told you so" but we all hoped and prayed that it would never happen again. If not for the anti-nuclear movement we would not be in a position to get out of nuclear technology in the next 10 years which is now possible. All we have to do is invest into the nets and new power plants - it won't cost more than bailing out one or two big banks - or the useless war in Afghanistan. Everybody should ask themselves one question: what is the economical advantage for a an average anti-nuclear campaigner if the nuclear power plants are closed? Answer: none - we all must fund the new technologies with our tax money and we have to pay a higher price for electrical power. Now - what is the economical benefit of nuclear power for the nuclear industry? Answer: several billions of profit each year for a technology that was publicly funded in an unprecedented manner with zero responsibility for the waste management that will cost the tax payer billions again. No wonder that they downplay the risk - they would not even have to pay for the damage because nobody can pay for that. |
| john bodega 31.03.2011 04:59 |
It comes down to how willing we are to accept "maybes" and "ifs" where people's health and safety is concerned. For what is gained - an energy source that is in no way relevant to our long term future - I just don't see how it's worth the risk. Nuclear energy is just a concession to people who assume that anything that isn't coal/oil/gas is safe and clean. This is no longer a scenario for which we don't have adequate information to make educated guesses on. It's there for everyone to see - some nuclear reactors that are literally out of our control. Are they zapping the entire country yet? No. As far as I'm concerned, they don't have to - the volatility of certain designs is now quite clear. The onus is now on the boffins to prove to us that a nuclear reactor can be built that is as safe as a windfarm, a massive array of solar panels, or those new hydro-electric contraptions that sit in the sea and actually generate energy from tidal motion. |
| Mr Mercury 07.04.2011 17:52 |
It seems that Japan has been hit by yet another Quake measuring 7.1 this time link |
| *goodco* 08.04.2011 17:52 |
My best friend 'had' to do a business trip in Japan last week. Arrived at O'Hare, scanned, and was radioactive. To say the least, him and his wife and kids are slightly paranoid. And I picked him up at the airport after a few hours of delay. If you see a glowing car in the Baltimore/DC area, don't fret...................... |
| ParisNair 10.04.2011 13:55 |
*goodco* wrote: My best friend 'had' to do a business trip in Japan last week. Arrived at O'Hare, scanned, and was radioactive. To say the least, him and his wife and kids are slightly paranoid. And I picked him up at the airport after a few hours of delay. If you see a glowing car in the Baltimore/DC area, don't fret......................Was this a serious post? |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.04.2011 05:08 |
ParisNair wrote: *goodco* wrote: My best friend 'had' to do a business trip in Japan last week. Arrived at O'Hare, scanned, and was radioactive. To say the least, him and his wife and kids are slightly paranoid. And I picked him up at the airport after a few hours of delay. If you see a glowing car in the Baltimore/DC area, don't fret...................... ==== Was this a serious post? ==== Probably. It doesn't take much to become contaminated (on the outside of your body, that is. Ingestion is more difficult to achieve but also much more dangerous), albeit mildly. Also, there's been yet *another* quake, measuring 6,6, centred on Iwaki, which is really close to Fukushima. The Fukushima Dai'ichi nuclear power plant has been confirmed to have been entirely without cooling or electricity for an hour. The rate and perseverence of moderate intensity quakes so long after the main quake suggests that another major earthquake is likely to hit the area in the next year or so, and considering the strength of these 'secondary tremors', I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were to fall into the 8 - 9 category. Also, it has been announced that the 20km evacuation-zone around the plant is to be enlarged, but it has not been said how large the zone will now become. |
| YourValentine 14.04.2011 11:14 |
GratefulFan wrote: No, I suggested that unreasonably vilifying nuclear energy on emotion that contradicts facts was irresponsible. The key words there being 'unreasonably' and 'irresponsible'. Emotion should of course contribute to human decisions, but emotion should be a witness, not judge and jury. I mentioned Curie only in reference to your conclusion that you didn't think things were going to turn out well because radiation was discovered in Tokyo water. We are exposed all the time, voluntarily and involuntarily, to radiation. The amount first found on the spinach was equivalent to one chest x-ray if eaten for five years. The water would have had to have been consumed for one year. Both Curie and the Radium Girls died from prolonged exposure in unusual circumstances. Those poor factory workers put radium powder right in their mouths and on their skin as a matter of course. This is not the situation in Japan, even though as human beings we can of course deeply feel their plight right now. They are in such an uncertain situation and being helplessly bombarded with radiation, no matter how slight, must be a terrible psychological burden. How frightening it must be to read about your food and water having any extra radiation in it AT ALL. But here, remote from the crisis, we have the option to be more circumspect and to help by not adding anything speculative, sensational or alarmist to the global chatter. ========================================================================== I wonder what you think about the situation now, GratefulFan. Now that 60 000 tons highly radioactive water have to be dealt with, now that highly radioactive water is leaking to the groundwater, the evacuation zone has been increased , China has complained about the lack of honest information, Scotland has measured increases of adiation on the ground, and the severity of the accident has been raised to INES level 7 - which is the highest possible level.. According to an evaluation by the INES, level 7 accidents correspond with a release into the external environment radioactive materials equal to more than tens of thousands terabecquerels of radioactive iodine 131. One terabecquerel equals 1 trillion becquerels (quoted from Kyodo) I really want to know how you think about calling me alarmist, speculative, sensationalist, irresposible and unreasonable just now. |
| inu-liger 14.04.2011 13:35 |
Ding ^ |
| Holly2003 14.04.2011 14:44 |
dong ^ |
| -fatty- 2850 14.04.2011 14:53 |
The witch is dead. |
| GratefulFan 14.04.2011 22:18 |
YourValentine wrote: I really want to know how you think about calling me alarmist, speculative, sensationalist, irresposible and unreasonable just now. ======================== First, I'd take issue with the fact that I "called" you any of those things except perhaps irresponsible, but so as not to avoid the question on semantics I'll answer it thus: I think it's really, really unfortunate that we're well past the point where a quick containment with no or minimal long term impact remained a possibility. I think it's worrisome and upsetting. But mostly I think the same thing I thought when I essentially dropped out of this conversation with you about three weeks ago, and that thought is that I don't deal very well with partisans, nor do I feel like I know how to communicate particularly effectively with people speaking from a rigid position seemingly indicated by their politics more than anything else. In a discussion like this my personality, my education and training, what I do all day at work, my world view, my everything in essence demands facts and reason and genuine curiosity, not ideology. That leaves us little opportunity to connect on this subject. When I say "I don't know how..." I do mean "I'. It's me as much as if not more than you. I have an entire parallel thought process going on that is driven by a strong emotional response to those affected and by something like resigned frustration with the parts of this brought on by human folly. I feel those things deeply, and yet I think I don't do well enough integrating that in the things I write so that we might have a chance to better hear each other, find some common ground, and perhaps even learn from each other on this topic. That said, you haven't been a peach to talk to yourself, and starting a conversation with what is essentially the school yard chant "I told you so" is a little absurd. You knew nothing more than me then, and you know nothing more than me now. You're frankly just more willing to appropriate the unknown for your personal anti nuclear beliefs. As I wrote much earlier, I believe the vividness of this accident is thoroughly skewing perspective. This summarizes some of those thoughts well enough: http://transitionvoice.com/2011/03/nukes-are-scary-but-dont-forget-coal/ P.S. While I'm of course sympathetic to the Scottish (even though...did one just call me a dead witch? LOL I'm really not sure.) the Japanese fallout has reached Ontario as well. I know this because the papers are full of the far left wing opposition party using the presence of Fukushima radiation to batter the left wing provincial government. This crass and transparent political opportunism bothers me much more than the extra particle(s) of cesium 137 (or whatever) that hit me today. |
| YourValentine 15.04.2011 01:27 |
Really, GFF, I am losing a lot of respect for you in this discussion. From the start you could have had the same information that I had. It did not come from some radical green forums or some "partisan" ideological magazines - the info was there for the whole world to see: A nuclear plant exploding in front of our very eyes on TV, the measured radiation values on the IAEA website and on the Kyodo website, a very moderate magazine close to the Japanese government. But instead of looking you chose to deny the facts - it was not me who was the partisan here. Hundreds of experts came out each day and evaluated the situation and it was not some idiotic ideological fanatics who started to re-consider their postion towards the nuclear power - it was the EU governments, the government of the USA and the Chinese government. I wrote paragraph after paragraph explaining to you that coal is not the alternative to nuclear power but you choose to ignore that and now you come back with the same old argument. The clima goals are just as important as the public security with regards to nuclear power and there won't be a return to coal fuelled power plants. The energy of the future will come from solar plants, wind energy , geothermal plants, tidal plants, bio mass plants. Maybe your country did not sign the Kyoto protocol and does not have a strategy to reduce co2 accordingly, I really do not know about it. But the countries who did sign and who do take the clima goals seriously will not switch off their nuclear plants and return to fossile energy, that is just not the case. You can have another opinion - that is not something I would bother about. But to act like your opinion is based on level-headed reason while my opinion is just the result of ideolical blindness is what annoys me - mainly when the crystal clear facts show that you are so wrong. This has nothing to do with an "I told you so" position - I would have had much rather been wrong about the results of the catastrophe. I know from experience how the Japanese people feel because I was already around when Chernobyl happened. But it is typical for your dishonest reasoning that from the start you tried to blame me for not caring for the victims like my angst-driven alarmism would make it so much harder for them when in fact it was the apologists who refused to take the appropriate measures to protect the victims. In your opinion it must be an ideological partisan view just to open your eyes and look at the truth. I only mentioned China and Scotland because they are examples for the fact how the whole world can be affected by such an accident. Now you may say that the values are tiny in Scotland and there is no proof that the Chinese will eat radioactive fish in the future - this is true. The fact is that we do not know because governments tend to downplay and even lie about the results of a nuclear accident. The Chinese simply have to believe that their fish is not contaminated and that TEPCO will not leak any more highly radioactive water into the sea. I am not speculating about global results but how many more nuclear accidents can we tolerate on this planet? |
| john bodega 15.04.2011 01:41 |
"But to act like your opinion is based on level-headed reason while my opinion is just the result of ideolical blindness is what annoys me" Yeah, exactly. It bugs me because beyond a certain point in a crisis, ordinary people should start to realise that their politics and ideologies really aren't all that important *in the grand scheme of things*. Who (seriously) gives a shit about my views on gun ownership, right after there's a mass shooting? Can you imagine a bunch of people having a spirited debate on alternative energies while standing around outside a fizzing nuclear reactor? Just because we're not in the affected area doesn't really alter how we should be thinking about this - the thing is still there, and still hazardous to people. 'Out of sight, out of mind' I guess. How long is it going to take for people to pull their heads out of their own arses on this? People act as though we have to make some sort of choice between fossil fuels and nuclear - a kind of bargain with the devil, if you ask me, when the truth is that we (if humanity ever finds a proper way forward) will not be relying on either of these on a large scale. We simply don't have to. Anyone who thinks nuclear energy should play a big role in our future should fix their time machine and return to the 60's. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 15.04.2011 07:06 |
YourValentine wrote: Hundreds of experts came out each day and evaluated the situation and it was not some idiotic ideological fanatics who started to re-consider their postion towards the nuclear power - it was the EU governments, the government of the USA and the Chinese government. ...I am not speculating about global results but how many more nuclear accidents can we tolerate on this planet?>>>> This is the problem, I think. These experts are out now telling us their educated opinions. It's confusing to us since it's often conflicting, but it's consistently scary. Unfortunately, once this 'story' is overshadowed by another (like ridiculous US's headlines - Can Palin AND Bachmann run for president?) the experts will go away and the discussion will end. There isn't a quality leader willing to stand up and continue the talk, show us our options - which WILL create jobs - and remind us this is not just our world for this moment but a world for future generations, and it's our responsibility to keep it somewhat as we found it - or better. Instead, we're mindlessly destroying it. Beyond that, lobbyists are too powerful to fight without solid leadership and, as I said, right now, that leadership does not exist. Zebonka12 wrote: How long is it going to take for people to pull their heads out of their own arses on this? ...Anyone who thinks nuclear energy should play a big role in our future should fix their time machine and return to the 60's.>>>> I, personally, agree absolutely. But I also believe it will take several more disasters for the powers-that-be to actually do something radically different. The technology is out there and, I think, a large portion of the world's population aware of this IS for change. This is just like the gun ownership issue. Every time there's a mass shooting in this country, pundits discuss how rules are either not being followed or should be made more restrictive. There's a deafening uproar and then silence, until the next mass shooting. People are too wrapped up in their own lives to bother with issues that matter to everyone. It's only when it affects them personally do they maintain the fight. Sad, but true. Already what's happening in Japan is relegated to the "In other news" section of the 24-hour cycles. |
| tcc 15.04.2011 08:12 |
By coincidence, I came across this article today while perusing through the newspapers in the period when I was out of the country: There was an interview in our local press on 30 march 2011 with an ukrainian scientist, dr sergei belyakov, who told of his harrowing experience in cleaning up the chernobyl nuclear disaster. He volunteered to help with the clean up because he knew how to work safely with radiation and educate others how to do it. He was among a reported 700,000 workers who cleared a 30 km area around the radiation seeping plant in order to entomb it. To the question whether he still believes in nuclear power, he nods and says that as a scientist he believes that there is no other option for mankind. "It is so efficient, so clean, so powerful. But plants must be well organised and run according to strict safety measures. That is really the only option.” He also adds: “People need to educate themselves to separate fact from fiction rather than panicking needlessly about the current situation in Japan when they are miles away.” He also related that a doctor specialising in radiation whom he met in chernobyl had said that anyone who set foot on the roof (the most contaminated spot on the site) would not live beyond 20 years. For him, it’s been almost 25 years now. Dr s. belyakov has written a book, penned several novels and chronicled his experience in chernobyl in an e-book, in russian. He plans to translate the book and have it published in english. |
| GratefulFan 15.04.2011 20:02 |
YourValentine wrote: Really, GFF, I am losing a lot of respect for you in this discussion. ============================ Well, happily, that makes one of us. I appreciate you and have many times felt glad to be on a forum along with someone whose near perfect English gives me an opportunity for first hand insight into a culture and worldview I would not otherwise have. This conversation hasn't gone well, which is why I excused myself from it. We've had better before and may yet have better again. That said, I can live with or without your respect equally, so I'll leave you to your thoughts.
|
| GratefulFan 15.04.2011 20:15 |
tcc wrote: To the question whether he still believes in nuclear power, he nods and says that as a scientist he believes that there is no other option for mankind. "It is so efficient, so clean, so powerful. But plants must be well organised and run according to strict safety measures. That is really the only option.” He also adds: “People need to educate themselves to separate fact from fiction rather than panicking needlessly about the current situation in Japan when they are miles away.” ======================== God help us if we never truly get past using plutonium to literally boil a kettle. That said, he's not alone in that opinion so that possibility must be factored it to policy right up until it doesn't have to be anymore. |
| GratefulFan 15.04.2011 22:24 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Yeah, exactly. It bugs me because beyond a certain point in a crisis, ordinary people should start to realise that their politics and ideologies really aren't all that important *in the grand scheme of things*. Who (seriously) gives a shit about my views on gun ownership, right after there's a mass shooting? Can you imagine a bunch of people having a spirited debate on alternative energies while standing around outside a fizzing nuclear reactor? Just because we're not in the affected area doesn't really alter how we should be thinking about this - the thing is still there, and still hazardous to people. 'Out of sight, out of mind' I guess. ============================= I have read this literally 10 times, and I'm still struggling to understand what you're trying to say. That it's inappropriate to be discussing this at all? That it's not the time to be thinking about anything beyond compassion for those affected? That some opinions are okay right now, but not others? I'm genuinely interested, and genuinely confused. |
| john bodega 16.04.2011 04:00 |
I was in something of a hurry when I wrote it, and to be honest I can't quite remember what disparate thoughts I was trying to tie together! More or less, I just feel that in the face of the current situation, some of the discussion is a bit on the nose (on both sides). Personally, I feel that anyone still tooting the nuclear horn at this point is asking me to accept a power source that is proven to be more dangerous than the renewable energy that we should be investing in at this point in history, on the basis of "don't worry, it won't malfunction". What I was getting at is that, well - it's only my opinion. It's not really worth much at the moment, and it's certainly not helpful for me to say "duh, nuclear bad!" in the face of such a messy situation. On the other side of the coin, I don't see how nuclear is really a defensible technology at the moment, and I can't fathom anyone taking that line seriously. I can appreciate what that Chernobyl jumper has to say about this current situation, but I'm a bit dubious about it for one or two reasons. I am unfortunately in a bit of a hurry again so I really can't sit and try to put this right. Ah well! |
| GratefulFan 17.04.2011 01:45 |
Zebonka12 wrote: More or less, I just feel that in the face of the current situation, some of the discussion is a bit on the nose (on both sides). ========================= I hate this discussion, and I have for some time. It bothered me to the point of actually losing a wee bit of sleep over it last night. I knew I disliked the tone and the futility of it, but I think you've focused a nagging sense of something else for me - against the backdrop of the nuclear crisis there is just nothing that feels good about arguing about it on the internet for the sake of arguing about it on the internet, which is all it's become for me.
|
| john bodega 17.04.2011 02:40 |
That is an argument based on a fallacy - that we are forced to choose between either coal or nuclear. We're not; we haven't been in that position for some time. A casual flip through "Billions and Billions" (written in 1996) makes me wonder why people are so damned slow on the uptake. Bearing in mind that I have a tendency to think a bit too long term - I understand that in the interim, things like coal or nuclear can be reasonably expected to play a part in where our energy comes from; but we gain nothing from waiting. The sooner the transition starts, the sooner that this discussion can be made moot. |
| GratefulFan 17.04.2011 04:16 |
God but I can't sleep as of late. It's making me crazy. Anyway, my post was about the 'interim'. Hard to gaze into the crystal ball too far, but say 30 to 60 years? Where's the fallacy? And in what way have we not 'started'? |
| john bodega 17.04.2011 07:45 |
"in what way have we not 'started'?" I guess it's just a feeling, and feelings aren't always the easiest things to translate. I'm stuck with the sense that not enough is being done; with the backwards attitudes of my politicians, with the fact that we're still in a world where there IS an energy debate, when to my mind the answers are already there - it's just a matter of making this crap and plugging it in. Like any human endeavour, it'll happen when people get a sense that money can be made from it, or votes gained - until then, I imagine it'll be a long and boring road forward. |
| GratefulFan 18.04.2011 23:37 |
Unfortunately it's much more complicated than all that. There are tremendous government incentives and subsidies to enter the green energy market, certainly in the province I live in at least, so there is money to be made and steady interest from potential developers. But the projects are expensive - recall my 1.5 billion dollar wind farm example that would have supplied less than 1% of the current energy mix. Clearly basic economics means that investment must be made over time, usually decades of time. Green energy taps the gentler side of nature, and right now that comes at a price. Wind, solar and tidal all have very low efficiencies because of their intermittent nature. There are only about 40 places in the world where the tides are strong enough to make projects practical, and even if every one was developed they would supply just about 6% of the global need. There has been no real technological breakthrough on the storage of excess power from wind and solar during off peak production, which is the game changer the industries are anxiously awaiting. Until then, the real output of the most sprawling wind farm is probably a magnitude lower than the smallest fossil fuel or nuclear plant. Add to that the fierce resistance that wind turbines encounter in many communities and you've got a recipe for only modest growth. These limitations mean these technologies for the most part remain supplementary parts of the energy mix of any given country - usually about 20 or 30%. Biomass is really great for use of material that previously ended up in landfills, but to be a big player their fuel will also have to be grown. With that comes sustainability challenges and pressure on food prices as crops compete for land use. We've already made mistakes here when vast areas were deforested to grow lucrative biomass crops because with the loss of the trees we lost huge carbon sinks. There are also challenges to whether or not biomass is truly carbon neutral right now because of the need for transportation of huge quantities of this stuff to the processing plants, though that should be sorted out soon. So biomass is again only going to be part of the solution. You don't get something for nothing, and the fact is that green tech is just not ready yet. So it's coal or it's nuclear. In 2007 a new coal plant was opening in China every 7-10 days. I'm not sure what the numbers are now, but that is a shocking statistic. And that's why even as the terrible catastrophe unfolds in Japan there are many, many people, including prominent environmentalists, insisting that the world still needs the nuclear option. |
| thomasquinn 32989 18.04.2011 23:57 |
Something you fail to mention is that there is an extremely wealthy, powerful and influential lobby, internationally, for both nuclear power and fossil fuels. That, coupled with the fact that most politicians are thoroughly corrupt, is a recipe for habitual conservatism, i.e. maintaining vested interest. |
| john bodega 19.04.2011 08:37 |
"You don't get something for nothing, and the fact is that green tech is just not ready yet. So it's coal or it's nuclear. " In the short term, for sure. It's important to add that neither technology can carry on as it has in the past. With coal, we have to try to minimise the impact it makes, and with nuclear, we've got to ... I dunno ... stop building plants near fault lines. Little things like that, haha. |
| GratefulFan 19.04.2011 11:49 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Something you fail to mention is that there is an extremely wealthy, powerful and influential lobby, internationally, for both nuclear power and fossil fuels. That, coupled with the fact that most politicians are thoroughly corrupt, is a recipe for habitual conservatism, i.e. maintaining vested interest. ================================= Nuclear usually lobbies for money and fossil fuel usually lobbies for the ability to continue polluting and avoid costly changes. I certainly haven't seen either chasing after some wind project which is roughly equivalent to an atomic sneeze, and (editing to add) sometimes they're the same people anyways. That may change when the technologies can directly compete, but the anecdotal evidence certainly is that most countries have made significant and meaningful investments in green technology. In my own province we're set to ditch coal completely by the end of 2014. When the government was trying to figure out how to replace the output of the largest coal plant in North America, Ontario's Bruce Nuclear - the largest nuclear plant in North America and the second largest in the world behind a Japanese facility - proposed building two new reactors on the site of the coal plant. This was swiftly and publicly rejected as an unsolicited speculative bid by a private company in which nobody was interested. So coal plant closes, nuclear industry told to take a hike. That's some influence they have there. The coal plant will be biomass supplemented by various green projects. Though not as entrenched as fossil and nuclear interests, there absolutely is a strong green lobby and intense public pressure on governments to provide leadership and stewardship on the environment. And it's important to remember that we're just replacing an industry with another industry. Ask any of the groups who protest the installation of turbines about Big Wind. Big Lumber wants to be a player in biomass, and has been around and noisy for decades. For now the problem remains that you can't lobby a tree into growing as fast as you can burn it, or the tides into coming more often, or the sun into shining all day and night, or the wind into blowing every moment. Until we can store the power produced we're stuck with onshore wind efficiencies usually at 30% or less and most solar panel efficiencies still in the teens. That is a problem that is infinitely more pressing than the fossil fuel or nuclear lobby. |
| Holly2003 19.04.2011 12:12 |
GratefulFan wrote: Though not as entrenched as fossil and nuclear interests, there absolutely is a strong green lobby and intense public pressure on governments to provide leadership and stewardship on the environment. And it's important to remember that we're just replacing an industry with another industry. Ask any of the groups who protest the installation of turbines about Big Wind. Big Lumber wants to be a player in biomass, and has been around and noisy for decades. ========================================================================= That can't be right. According to the "green-only" enthusiasts, green energy is free, the windmills and water turbines will be built by handsome eco-warriors and wood nymphs, and green energy's only by-products are smiles and rainbows :) |
| GratefulFan 19.04.2011 12:29 |
Zebonka12 wrote: In the short term, for sure. It's important to add that neither technology can carry on as it has in the past. With coal, we have to try to minimise the impact it makes, and with nuclear, we've got to ... I dunno ... stop building plants near fault lines. Little things like that, haha. =================================== We just don't know the term. We don't know if it's going to be short, even with our best efforts. And that is why there are so many credible and measured voices saying that options must all be kept open and viable. With regard to coal, we don't even know yet if carbon capture is even going to be economically viable on a large scale, and we certainly don't know anything about the impact of storing it all underground. Scrubbers are expensive and energy intensive and therefore contribute even more to carbon emissions even while they help with particulate. While we all watched with dismay and anger as radioactive water was deliberately ejected into the Pacific Ocean, coal plants were doing what they do every day: mixing highly toxic, carcinogenic and radioactive fly ash that on it's own would require classification and handling as toxic waste with the less toxic ash from the bottom and dumping it all in unlined pools scattered throughout the land. It is stored wet, and almost certainly leaching into soil and groundwater. In the United States the EPA was accusing of suppressing a report that found that one in 50 around living around these storage ponds would develop cancer. Even though carbon emissions are down from previous highs through modernization and improvements to efficiency, minimizing the true impact that coal makes is something that the industry has successfully fought for years. Nuclear plants can certainly be built to withstand earthquakes. Fukushima withstood a 9.0, it was the tsunami that did it in. I think the lesson from Fukushima will be better preparations for a one two punch. Triple redundancy in backup power sounds good on paper, but it wasn't good enough here. Planners can no longer assume that infrastructure or even a passable road to a plant will be there to support it post disaster, and backup systems must become more robust. I also think that the nuclear industry should stop telling people that there is no chance of failure or disaster. There clearly is, however remote, and the public should somehow have an opportunity to be actively engaged as safety watchdogs. Communities should practice regular evacuation drills and above all be educated about radiation so that people in Kansas aren't clearing local shelves of iodine over a nuclear accident in Japan. If more open, calm and frank dialogue is the result of Fukushima, something will have been salvaged from this terrible event. |
| GratefulFan 19.04.2011 12:37 |
Holly2003 wrote: ... will be built by handsome eco-warriors... ================= Oooohhh! Forget everything I said. Nuclear energy is Dante's ninth circle of hell. No, the tenth. They need to build a new circle for nuclear, it's that bad. |
| Holly2003 19.04.2011 13:06 |
GratefulFan wrote: Holly2003 wrote: ... will be built by handsome eco-warriors... ================= Oooohhh! Forget everything I said. Nuclear energy is Dante's ninth circle of hell. No, the tenth. They need to build a new circle for nuclear, it's that bad. I prefer nymphs myself. Can't beat a good nymph ;) |
| GratefulFan 19.04.2011 13:23 |
Holly2003 wrote: Can't beat a good nymph ;) ======================= No. That's wouldn't be either legal or nice. But maybe you could spank the naughty nymphs, just a little bit. |
| Holly2003 19.04.2011 13:35 |
GratefulFan wrote: Holly2003 wrote: Can't beat a good nymph ;) ======================= No. That's wouldn't be either legal or nice. But maybe you could spank the naughty nymphs, just a little bit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm up for it if you are ;) |
| YourValentine 22.04.2011 06:30 |
I did not drop out of this discussion although it looks like it has degenerated to the usual QZ quibbling i the mean time:) Bear with me to answer to some points I find important. GFF wrote the following: "It's almost certainly carelessly optimistic to conduct ourselves as though there is nothing but unicorns standing between April 15, 2011 and a glorious green tech future" =================== That is exactly what annoyed me in this discussion from the start: you, GFF, discrediting my opinion with such sentences which do not even have anything to do with my opinion. Only because you are so ill-informed that you do not know anything about new technologies you do not need to dicredit the advocates of green technology - who happen to be linvestors and politicians and not just private ppeople like me. GFF wrote the following: "You don't have to 'return' to fossil energy, you just have to arbitrarily cripple your nuclear fleet and keep your coal plants firing for years longer than necessary. Like Germany. So you can import electricity, at least in the short term, thereby ceding all control of the safety and conditions under which it is produced to somebody else entirely. If that's not anti nuclear ideology, I don't know what is. You don't have to 'return' to fossil energy, you just have to arbitrarily cripple your nuclear fleet and keep your coal plants firing for years longer than necessary. Like Germany. So you can import electricity, at least in the short term, thereby ceding all control of the safety and conditions under which it is produced to somebody else entirely. If that's not anti nuclear ideology, I don't know what is." ========================= Germany has not imported any energy since WW II. Geramny is aa power exporting nation and in parts of the country we have so many electrical power that the nets are over loaded and power is even given to Poland for free only to relax the overloads : Coal plants and wind plants must be switched off because of net overloads - only nuclear plants are regularly not switched off because it is so difficult. It's the propaganda of the 4 big comapnies in my country to claim that we must import "unsafe" nuclear energy from France or the GR in case of changing to green technology and the other propaganda is the the "lights will go out" in the country if we stop nuclear technology. Funny how you repeat this propaganda without having any knowledge about the facts in my country. GFF wrote: "While the German plan might be right for Germany, it will be decades before the world sorts out it's future energy mix. I don't want 50 and 60 year old nuke plants sitting around the planet while that's happening. Respectfully, neither should you." ======================== I never said that I am talking for other coutries, I only ever talked about what my country should do (and probably will do). I am far away from teaching other nations - I do believe that the German industry will profit from all the innovation and energy technology will be an even bigger export asset that it already is today. GFF wrote: "On the very first day of the nuclear crisis when not one single thing was known about what would develop, you declared safe nuclear technology dead and cast the accident as the result of the inherent irresponsibility of supporting nuclear policy. You did that all virtually without a single specific fact at your disposal, or anybody else's disposal. That is an ideology. When you don't need to know what's going to happen in order to make up your mind," ============================= How can you say we did not know anything about what happened? Are you closing your eyes on purpose? When I first posted in this thread 4 blocks in Fukushima had no cooling whatsoever for a whole day. That is the possible worst case scenario for any nuclear plant. Nuclear fuel starts to melt within 10 minutes when the cooling stops. That is exactly the reason why cooling is so important. You chose to ignore and downplay the situation from day 1 and even when the buildings exploded live on TV you kept denying that there was a catastrophic situation. Even if the reactors had not exploded there would have been a very dangerous situation with melting fuel in unknown quantities - not to mention possible leaks and even leaking plutonium. It 's really ridiculous how you keep telling me that my opinion is ideology when you are not even capable of taking in the most simple facts. ===== Holly wrote: "That can't be right. According to the "green-only" enthusiasts, green energy is free, the windmills and water turbines will be built by handsome eco-warriors and wood nymphs, and green energy's only by-products are smiles and rainbows :)" ============================== Very funny, Holly - maybe that was true in the 1980s :-). Today green technologies are a markest and big investment. The old cliches do not work anymore - the only difference is that many small players will be in that market - much to the chagrin of the monopolists. GFF wrote: " I also think that the nuclear industry should stop telling people that there is no chance of failure or disaster. There clearly is, however remote, and the public should somehow have an opportunity to be actively engaged as safety watchdogs. Communities should practice regular evacuation drills and above all be educated about radiation so that people in Kansas aren't clearing local shelves of iodine over a nuclear accident in Japan. If more open, calm and frank dialogue is the result of Fukushima, something will have been salvaged from this terrible event." ========================= Speaking of unicorns... where are the people supposed to be evacuated? And who decides in which way they are "educated"? Just yesterday the Japanese government rose the permitted radiation dose for children to 3,8 micro sievert per hour - much too high. Do you really believe any government would do anything different in the same situation? If you have faith in evacuation drills or in the responsibilty of governments and nuclear industry, then certainly you are "carelessly optimistic". |
| GratefulFan 22.04.2011 11:40 |
YourValentine wrote: That is exactly what annoyed me in this discussion from the start: you, GFF, discrediting my opinion with such sentences which do not even have anything to do with my opinion. ======================= Pot. Kettle. Black.
|
| GratefulFan 22.04.2011 11:40 |
Speaking of unicorns... where are the people supposed to be evacuated? And who decides in which way they are "educated"? Just yesterday the Japanese government rose the permitted radiation dose for children to 3,8 micro sievert per hour - much too high. Do you really believe any government would do anything different in the same situation? If you have faith in evacuation drills or in the responsibilty of governments and nuclear industry, then certainly you are "carelessly optimistic". ========================== Of the 29 mass evacuations noted in Wikipedia for the 20th and 21st centuries, two of them have been related to nuclear accidents. To my knowledge none of the millions affected throughout history rode off on unicorns. Only a small handful of the total evacuations were smaller than the up to 200,000 that have been evacuated from around Fukushima. Humanity must be capable of dealing with mass evacuations on a much larger scale than Fukushima because war and natural and man made disasters demand it. Careful planning, awareness and practice where possible can only benefit our collective ability to manage any of these situations. They've raised the limit for children to a pre-existing international maximum, and they've done so in an emergency situation. Really, how do you know it's 'much too high'? It translates to 20 millisieverts annually. That is 30 to 50% lower than the natural radiation levels alone in some parts of the world. You continue to show a lack of apprecation for basic facts about radiation, including the theoretical nature of LNT models as they pertain to low dose radiation and the natural and man made mechanisms through which we are all exposed all the time. Finally, I'll wait to see how industry and government might move on educating people, rather than making assumptions in support of an ideology I don't have. |
| YourValentine 25.04.2011 04:09 |
GFF wrote: "An umbrella organization of Germany's utility companies says the government's decision to take some atomic power plants offline in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster means the country is now importing power from its nuclear-reliant neighbors" ==== Please note the beginning of the sentence: " a lobbyist organisation says..." No matter how many bloggers repeat that, it is still untrue to say that Germany is compensating the loss of 7 nuclear plants by importing nuclear power from the neighbour countries. The head of the federal net agency told the parliament and national television: the numbers and facts show that the production of electricity still exceeds the demand and the net balance shows that the export is still higher than the import. Germany is a transit net as much as a seller and buyer of electricity and the physical flows are all monitored by the federal net agency. There have always been imports from France and other neighbours, the EU is a common electricity market and import/export is a part of this market. To claim that the import is now exceeding the export is a lie by the lobbyists and it was called a lie by the net agency in public. GFF wrote: "It creates serious challenges for the economics, and is the reason that enthusiasm can dry up once the incentives and subsidies disappear. It also creates serious challenges for grid stability, and unless the energy mix in a country is well penetrated by things like hydropower that can quicky ramp up and down in response to suddenly present and suddenly absent wind and solar generation, the net affect is fossil and nuclear plants forced into inefficient operation that in the worst cases continue to burn their fuel but throw it off as heat rather than feeding the grid as they need to be prepared at any moment to recommence generation. The integration of intermittent generation sources on a grid designed for just the opposite means massive changes to grid operation and massive investments in new infrastructure to deal with the new paradigm. My argument has never been that this is not a worthy or achievable goal, just that the time frame and eventual realities are as yet unknowable and thus running after nuclear with pitchforks is premature, and due to the inevitable inverse relationship with fossil fuels, irresponsible" ==== If you wait for the nuclear and coal industry to make the necessary investments and to build the necessary storage plants, the energy change will never happen. I live in a highly populated country with an advanced industry and there are enough investors, enough prototypes and enough models that prove that the change can be achieved in 8-15 years. It's not my own naive belief - all major political parties and most communities believe the same. Communities are ready and willing to invest into the necessary nets and pump storage plants. There are interesting new ideas and patents to build other storage plants than just pumping water up a hill. Plants that need less space and won't hurt the environment that much. GFF wrote: "That's precisely the opposite of what I heard when you said that the suffering in Japan was the result once again of the inherent irresponsibility of nuclear policy. That seems to me to be a clear condemnation of another country's policies, with an implicit argument about 'what they should do'." ================== Definitely not. I can criticize the irresponsibility of an industry without telling a nation what their national energy policy can be. It is obvious that growing economies like China or India have very different energy needs than a highly industrialized country. I think I even mentioned that earlier in the discussion. As to Japan - I really never understood the faith of the Japanese people in the nuclear industry but there was an apparent consensus in the society. The biggest criticism I ever had was the fact that my own country has no plan about the nuclear waste management. There have been nuclear plants for over 40 years but there is no final storage for spent fuel and no plan how to safely lock away all the dangerous waste for ten thousands of years. I believe that the lack of safe waste storage is the biggest problem and shows the worst lack of responsibility in nuclear industry . GFF wrote: "They've raised the limit for children to a pre-existing international maximum, and they've done so in an emergency situation. Really, how do you know it's 'much too high'? It translates to 20 millisieverts annually. That is 30 to 50% lower than the natural radiation levels alone in some parts of the world." ===================================== The natural radiation in Tokyo pre-Fukushima was 0,028 to 0,079 micro Sievert per hour, so the new permitted limit for children is up to 100 times as high as the natural radiation - please do not take some uranium mine as a comparison. The pure numbers are not the scandal imo - after all, they cannot really protect the children no matter how high or low the limits are. The scandal is that the government tries to get rid of the responsibility by increasing the values. I believe that they are responsible when they send their own children into the 80 km zone. |
| GratefulFan 25.04.2011 17:52 |
Please note the beginning of the sentence: " a lobbyist organisation says..." No matter how many bloggers repeat that, it is still untrue to say that Germany is compensating the loss of 7 nuclear plants by importing nuclear power from the neighbour countries. The head of the federal net agency told the parliament and national television: the numbers and facts show that the production of electricity still exceeds the demand and the net balance shows that the export is still higher than the import. Germany is a transit net as much as a seller and buyer of electricity and the physical flows are all monitored by the federal net agency. There have always been imports from France and other neighbours, the EU is a common electricity market and import/export is a part of this market. To claim that the import is now exceeding the export is a lie by the lobbyists and it was called a lie by the net agency in public. ==================== As a small point, the information was reported by Reuters, Forbes and Business Week, not just bloggers. Regardless, I think it's important to focus on the integrity of information and not assumptions about the integrity of those sharing it. I'm not sure what the 'federal net agency' refers to, but if it's a government department they would certainly also have a motivation to spin facts to suit political ends. Saying the production of electricity still exceeds the demand doesn't say anything about whether the electricty is produced when the demand is there, or whether it's excess wind or solar production that can't be used domestically at that moment given the current transmission infrastructure, and thus must be offloaded. Erasing 7000 MW of base load nuclear power can't be replaced by any amount of excess wind power if it's not there at the right time. One could also manipulate net balance facts by selecting time frames to suit the argument. This is excerpted from a Business Week article published April 4: ENTSO-E, the Brussels-based group overseeing Europe's electricity grid and tracking cross-border flows, confirmed that Germany turned from exporting to importing electricity toward the end of March. "From our preliminary data, we can deduct an average net import of electricity between March 19 and April 3 of about 1.8 gigawatt during any one hour, which implies an average import per day of 43 gigawatt hours," said ENTO-E's secretary general, Konstantin Staschus. Environment Ministry spokeswoman Christiane Schwarte, however, said the country is still self-sufficient even without the seven nuclear power plants, and the imports only reflect normal fluctuation within the European grid system. The timing, duration and magnitude of the change from exporter to importer (the utilities association claims a normal March would see daily net exports of between 7 - 150 GWh) certainly strongly suggests a relationship with the shuttering of the reactors. Though the information I have is limited to these articles, it seems to me that at the very least it may be too soon to tell. Perhaps coal plants hadn't yet had a chance to ramp up generation enough to replace the nuclear power, or other adjustments have to be made, and things will normalize again shortly. But I get the sense that perhaps the public impression is that you can just tap into what you used to export and use it 100% domestically instead. That is not true because of the base load generation vs. intermittent generation issue given the current transmission realities. There is no shame in importing if that were the case, it just seems to me that the politics may be creating an atmosphere where the true impact of policy decisions are being blurred for political expediencey. The public should have every opportunity to make informed choices and for that you need frankness and complete information. It's likely to become even more challenging next month when additional reactors go offline for scheduled maintenance.
|
| GratefulFan 25.04.2011 18:11 |
The natural radiation in Tokyo pre-Fukushima was 0,028 to 0,079 micro Sievert per hour, so the new permitted limit for children is up to 100 times as high as the natural radiation - please do not take some uranium mine as a comparison. The pure numbers are not the scandal imo - after all, they cannot really protect the children no matter how high or low the limits are. The scandal is that the government tries to get rid of the responsibility by increasing the values. I believe that they are responsible when they send their own children into the 80 km zone. ========================= Not uranium mines at all - the natural radiation in several places on earth like parts of Brazil, India and Iran can reach 30 and 40 millisiverts a year. Some studies have indicated the inhabitants of these areas actually have lower cancer rates (as have some studies of radiation workers) leading to theories of radiation hormesis that challenge LNT theories. My point is that on the whole human beings have tolerance for a wide range of low dose radiation exposures and the data for low exposures over time below a cumulative dose of 100 or 200 millisieverts is very uncertain. International cancer organizations and the WHO have cautioned that it will likely remain impossible to ever pull the Chernobyl cancer rates out of national cancer statistics saying "It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates – other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions – that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident." So they end up having to estimate based on LNT theories and previous studies of atomic bomb victims. Those total numbers are significant, but they corellate to between 3 and 5% of all cancers. In other words, if you get cancer there is a 95 to 97% chance it's not related to Chernobyl. There is some indication that emergency workers at Chernobyl make have increased incidences of leukemia and some indication that women may be at a slightly greater risk for breast cancer in some of the most affected areas, but further studies need to be done. And of course, at just 25 years out, a clearer picture may yet emerge in coming years. Hugely elevated risk of thyroid cancer is the one clearly statistically supportable result of Chernobyl. The most affected group were females in the most contaminated areas of Belarus where iodine deficiency is theorized and where contaminated milk was consumed over time. This vulnerable group were determined in 2004 in a peer reviewed study to have a 3286% increase in risk for thyroid cancer as compared to 1970. Most of those were children. A staggering increase to be sure, but when translated to cases per year per 100,000 population the number of new cases annually was just 27. So every year, as of the time those statistics were complied, 999,973 people of 100,000 didn't get thyroid cancer. So the prevalence, which now numbers in the thousands and is expected to continue to rise, is high but the incidence (which is a measure of individual risk) remains much lower than I think people perceive from anecdotal data. The inescapable conclusion from all the peer reviewed facts and figures is that people who have been affected by man made nuclear accidents or detonations have an overwhelming likelihood to have their lives unfold almost exactly as they would have otherwise from a physiological standpoint. Unfortunately that's not true from a psychological standpoint. I hope I find the right words for this last part because if I could take back everything I've written on this thread and make just one point stick, it would be this: The psychological suffering of people who see themselves as contaminated, damaged and doomed individuals and the uncertainly it casts over their lives does incalculably more harm than the radiation. Radiation unqualified and unquantified is a neutral word, but it's not treated as such in our society. There are so many heartbreaking and sobering accounts of the ramifications of treating radiation like something out of a horror movie rather than an industrial contaminant that within a broad range almost always exposes people to biological processes we survive everyday without significant consequence. In modern day Japan children have already been turned away from clinics, and cars with Fukushima license plates turned away from gas stations due to irrational fear. In Chernobly it's been linked with psychosomatic illness and reckless behaviours like overuse of alcohol and tobacco and eating local berries and such that they've been warned against. As Queen fans we've seen this psychology before when Freddie and countless others in the 1980's acted entirely against their own best interests in the face of feeling marked by something ominous, deadly and invisible stalking their community.That's why I am so upset by groups like Greenpeace and others who whatever their intentions actually are are unwittingly ramping up this fear and anxiety in a culture that is enormously sensitive to it to the clear detriment of the people they are intending to advocate for. The government has set a preexisting exposure limit guided by the ICRP for precisely the scenario of a nuclear accident. The guidelines are precisely about safety. They are there to define the upper safe limits in suboptimal situations, not allow governments to evade responsibility for anything. That is an accusation that only hurts the well being of people who are anxious enough without being fed questionably motivated propaganda about how they are being abused and sacrificed and poisoned by their governments. It's terribly short sighted and terribly cruel, however unintentional. I'd encourage anybody who has been interested in any of the subjects touched on on this thread so far to do a lot of open minded reading of all available perspectives because there is a lot that is just not intuitive. Anyway, I think we've both left this on a better note than it's been in previous posts YV, so I'm intending to bow out for now and leave you to the last word if you'd like. I really have appreciated your many thoughts on all this, even if it hasn't seemed that way at times. GF |
| thomasquinn 32989 26.04.2011 05:59 |
GratefulFan: Either you are mistaken, or you are deliberately trying to mislead, because the background radiation in MiliSievert you mention is not the *average*, but the *peak* radiation in those areas. The highest average natural radiation on earth is found in Ramsar, Iran, where it is 10.2 MiliSievert per year, with the added comment that it is suspected that this number is not wholly accounted for by natural radiation. The second place, which *is* undisputedly natural, is Guarapari in Brazil, where the natural radiation averages 5.5 MiliSievert per year, and even there it is suspected that the cause can be found in mineral deposits. |
| Holly2003 26.04.2011 07:40 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: GratefulFan: Either you are mistaken, or you are deliberately trying to mislead ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ knobend |
| GratefulFan 26.04.2011 15:09 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: GratefulFan: Either you are mistaken, or you are deliberately trying to mislead, because the background radiation in MiliSievert you mention is not the *average*, but the *peak* radiation in those areas. The highest average natural radiation on earth is found in Ramsar, Iran, where it is 10.2 MiliSievert per year, with the added comment that it is suspected that this number is not wholly accounted for by natural radiation. The second place, which *is* undisputedly natural, is Guarapari in Brazil, where the natural radiation averages 5.5 MiliSievert per year, and even there it is suspected that the cause can be found in mineral deposits. ==================== Jeez. Knobend is right. The radiation measurements around Ramsar are not evenly distributed and the area as a whole is is a blend of ELNRA.(Eleveated Level Natural Radiation Areas) and LLRNA (Low Level Natural Radiation Areas) more typical for most parts of the globe. Since you can't live everywhere at once in a region, an average covering the entire area is meaningless. Ramak, Sefee Khak and Talesh Mahelldh are considered ELNRA (Eleveated Natural Radiation Areas) in the Ramsar region and 25% of that popluation receives between 5 and 130 mSv annually EXCLUDING the indoor exposure to accumulated radon which can double figures. You will typically see 260 mSv per year quoted as the peak exposure for residents of the applicable areas. 40 mSv per year is the population/exposure adjusted average of these areas for the quarter of the population previously noted, and I selected that statistic to meaningfully convey the principle that there is a large natural range of radiation in which humans survive and indeed thrive without quoting the completly relevant but less broadly representative figures upwards of 130 (or 260) mSv/a. If you wish to consider 100% of the population in ELNRA, the researchers' summarizing statement was "...in ELNRA, the majority of the public has potential to receive annual doses either within the dose limit of 20 mSv per year for occupationally exposed workers, or significantly higher than the dose limit. In particular, some persons even have the potential to receive doses over 10 times higher than that of the dose limit for workers." At any rate, you are absolutely correct that accuracy and precision is important, so allow me to retract my last statement "the natural radiation in several places on earth like parts of Brazil, India and Iran can reach 30 and 40 millisiverts a year" and say instead that "the effective dose of radiation from naturally occuring cosmic and terrestrial sources in parts of Ramsar, Iran can reach 260 mSv per year". Hope that helps. P.S. Mineral deposits and such are not sufficiently 'natural'? Natural radiation includes both cosmic and terrestrial sources. You're truly flipping retarded. P.P.S. Don't know if it's peer reviewed, but here is a document that indicates that residents may be eating about 20 |
| YourValentine 28.04.2011 02:59 |
It's not about having the last word in this debate - at least not for me. Actually, the whole discussion is very frustrating for me seeing that someome from Canada repeats the whole arguments I hear at home from the nuclear lobby. Of course people will fight against power masts in their back yards - we have the rule of law and the government cannot walk over the rights of the citizens only because they wasted years and years doing nothing to improve the power nets. Now they make it sound like the common citizen is holding up progress when it was in fact the Christian democrats and liberals who held up progress in favour of the nuclear lobby for the last years.. After all, they did built each and every nuclear power plant against the wishes of the citizens living in the affected areas. Now they will have to work with the citizens instead of against them for a change. As to the dangers and risks of radiation, please, please look up "The children of Chernobyl" on Google or YouTube and take a look for yourself about the effects radiation has on children and children borne from mothers and fathers who had been exposed to radiation. If you were right with your opinion that radiation is only a neglectable statistical risk and a psycholigal problem rather than an actual medical issue - we would not have all these international organisations who try to help these poor children. Children born with horrible genetic deformations, no legs, blind, holes in their hearts and the horror list goes on. To say that these are just statistically neglectable risks a population has to take for the benefit of cheap energy is so cynical I do not even know how to answer to that. If I were a Japanese mother I would be afraid, as well - and for very good reasons. You said a lot about coal plants and I fully agree about the detrimental effects of coal plant emissions. Please take a look at the video link maybe you understand how I feel about the "natural radiation" issue - it is the same. The guy in the video says that CO2 is a natural compound of our atmosphere and not a pollutant - which is correct - it's the dose that matters. |
