Doesnt it take something like 30,000 years for radiation like this to dissipate enough in an area, for people to live there again? But then again, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nukes dropped on them in the 40s and people live there today with no problems, so…?
China’s new nuclear plan, released Tuesday, calls for more than doubling its current nuclear fleet of 30 operational nuclear reactors, and goes far beyond the 21 reactors it already had under construction.
Excellent post, Saints Alive. This is orders of magnitude more devestating than Chernobyl, so it’s completely ridiculous for anyone to try and downplay this by calling it “hysteria”. People are just absolutely hellbent on remaining comfy and asleep at all costs. And Tepco’s rose-tinted lies are doing more harm than good. There has been a massive coverup from the very beginning. And in my estimation, that may very well include the original cause of the “accident” as well.
And now even the toughest robots mankind can produce are destroyed within a couple hours of exposure.
On the bright side (as in positive, not glowing from radiation), accidents like Fukushima provide essential experience on how to handle such disasters, both in terms of technology and procedures. It is important, for example, to remember that the only deaths occurred during the evacuation, not at the plant. We had the same thing happen in Texas over Hurricane Rita. The result was a change in evacuation procedures.
Like it or not, nuclear power is not only here to stay, but will grow in importance as use of fossil fuels decline. There is no free lunch.
You can post all of the pro nuclear energy the links to blogs and websites you wish.
I could post just as many links to anti nuclear energy sites as well.
But that is not my point in posting the link to the article in the OP.
What many people take issue with is the building of these nuclear reactors at locations where the odds of a catastrophe are greatly increased. Building nuclear reactors on volcanic islands near active fault lines is reckless and totally irresponsible. Japan has over a hundred active volcanoes.
The same thing could be said for building cities in California. Yet the buildings there are supposedly engineered for earthquakes. So I wonder if one can build nuclear reactors near fault line. I think it an engineering question not a political one.
Hiserodt’s book identifies the physics … not a political link.
My point is that there are actual physical forces that can be identified and designed for.
INSTEAD of using words like “unimaginable” or “worse than Chernobyl” or “30,000 years” or “catastrophe”.
Study the actuals instead of the hyperbolic theoreticals.
California has nuclear power plants that work fine. They were designed for the actual conditions. [Yes, some are being shut down, but not for being near an earthquake fault.]
California has pioneered in earthquake design.
The U.S. midwest has tornadoes. The U.S. east coast has hurricanes.
Nuclear power plants work well. AND deliver economical electric power.
France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear. Their nuclear power industry is disciplined and admired and works well and they export their designs all over the world. AND the French designs were developed from American designs. AND the French nuclear power industry helps keep their country immune from embargoes and other political forces generated from the Middle East.
The United States gets only 20% of its electrical power from nuclear.
President Jimmy Carter shut down the reprocessing of “expired” nuclear fuel.
It takes math and physics. Read Hiserodt’s book.
Japan has 50+ nuclear reactors that were working fine. But all were shut down in an emotional reaction. Read up on the tidal wave. No one died at Fukushima. Tens of thousands died elsewhere owing to the tidal wave.
Read up on the impact of hysterical reactions.
Emotions and theatrics may make some people feel good, but those reactions don’t provide food or energy or transportation.
You can, if you want to, blame anything on anything.
Some evacuees apparently starved to death because of a badly managed evacuation.
Here is part of the Wiki article:
Major news source reporting at least 2 TEPCO employees confirmed dead from “disaster conditions” following the earthquake. “The two workers, aged 21 and 24, sustained multiple external injuries and were believed to have died from blood loss, TEPCO said. Their bodies were decontaminated as radiation has been spewing from the plant for three weeks.”
A Japanese Research Company was assigned to find out the health effects and casualties caused by the disaster. They found that some deaths were early, during evacuation processes, while other deaths gradually happened after the disaster. The agency found out that the cause of these early deaths were due to the disruption of hospital operations, exacerbation of pre-existing health problems and the stress of dramatic changes in life. It is stated that the vast majority of people who died during their evacuation were elderly. 45 patients were reported dead after the evacuation of a hospital in Futaba due to lack of food, water and medical care as evacuation was delayed by three days.
The Associated Press reported that fourteen senior citizens died after being moved from their hospital which was in the Fukushima plant evacuation zone.
On 14 April 2011, it was reported that the oldest resident of Iitate, a 102-year-old, committed suicide rather than to leave following the announcement of his village’s evacuation.
In a nuclear accident situation it is essential for authorities to understand and communicate the direction that contamination is spreading and where it may be deposited on land. Given this information, as well as basic knowledge of the risks of radiation, residents would not feel unnecessary anxiety.
The wind measurably increased the radiation levels up to 100 miles away from the disaster site. Radioactive iodine, which can lead to increased risk of thyroid cancer if absorbed into the body, was released into the air along with other fission products. To counteract the radioactive iodine the distribution of potassium iodide is used, as it prevents the absorption of the potentially dangerous radioisotopes of that element. Since Chernobyl, distributing potassium iodide to children has been a standard response when risk of radioactivity release is high.
According to the Japanese Government, over 160,000 people in the general population were screened in March 2011 for radiation exposure and no case was found which affects health. Thirty workers conducting operations at the plant had exposure levels greater than 100 mSv.
In April 2011, the United States Department of Energy published projections of the radiation risks over the next year for people living in the neighborhood of the plant. Potential exposure could exceed 20 mSv/year (2 rems/year) in some areas up to 50 kilometers from the plant. That is the level at which relocation would be considered in the USA, and it is a level that could cause roughly one extra cancer case in 500 young adults. Natural radiation levels are higher in some part of the world than the projected level mentioned above, and about 4 people out of 10 can be expected to develop cancer without exposure to radiation. Further, the radiation exposure resulting from the accident for most people living in Fukushima is so small compared to background radiation that it may be impossible to find statistically significant evidence of increases in cancer.