Post Fukushima. Where Now for Nuclear Power?

[rangerpl 13]

Yeah, I just went back and read walker's recent posts, especially the one about thyroid cancer risks among children in Japan. I remember that a similar thing happened after Chernobyl, in Spain... that didn't necessarily mean that all of Europe would soon be uninhabitable. Fallout can get carried quite far and I do agree with you when you say that radiation levels will rise all over Japan. But that doesn't mean that the radiation levels will be deadly.

I'm not disputing the factual accuracy of what you guys have presented, I just think it's not being interpreted properly.

Anyway, the whole point of me going in this thread was to point out that nuclear power itself is not to blame for these accidents; we shouldn't phase out such an important technology just because of this; it's as if Karl Benz stopped work on combustion-powered cars because he feared traffic accidents... instead of blaming the technology we should focus on how to use it safely.

Fukushima and Chernobyl are lessons, that if we want to continue using nuclear power (and we should, it's very efficient), we need to be serious about it. The whole industry needs to be reformed. I just think total phasing-out of nuclear power is a knee-jerk reaction that is motivated by panic and fear, not rational decisions.

Cheers

Edited September 5, 2011 by RangerPL

[*LK1* 10]

Since we have two contradicting sources I'll just leave it at that then. That wasn't my point anyway, the real nonsense is what nettrucker wrote. Does he seriously think that Fukushima will contaminate the entire country of Japan?

the japanese place more far from fukushima will not be contaminated as fukushima itself of course. but we can expect an increase in cancers, directly proportional to the proximity at fukushima, in the entire japan.

japan is not bigger than ukraine(no way). and we have seen an increase of cancers in the entire country after chernobyl.

[rangerpl 13]

the japanese place more far from fukushima will not be contaminated as fukushima itself of course. but we can expect an increase in cancers, directly proportional to the proximity at fukushima, in the entire japan.

japan is not bigger than ukraine(no way). and we have seen an increase of cancers in the entire country after chernobyl.

That is true. There were even radioactive particles as far away as Sweden and France (an increase in thyroid cancer cases was reported there). From what nettrucker wrote it seemed to me like he was trying to say that all of Japan would be uninhabitable.

Of course there will be a small level of contamination.

[st_dux 26]

Anyway, the whole point of me going in this thread was to point out that nuclear power itself is not to blame for these accidents; we shouldn't phase out such an important technology just because of this; it's as if Karl Benz stopped work on combustion-powered cars because he feared traffic accidents... instead of blaming the technology we should focus on how to use it safely.

Fukushima and Chernobyl are lessons, that if we want to continue using nuclear power (and we should, it's very efficient), we need to be serious about it. The whole industry needs to be reformed. I just think total phasing-out of nuclear power is a knee-jerk reaction that is motivated by panic and fear, not rational decisions.

+1, very well said.

[*LK1* 10]

im not against what he said, as i said, if depends on me, i would wait the 5th or even the 6th generation of nuclear plants before using this technology.

the problem is that the current nuclear plants avaible in the world are in many case the 2th(what the hell they are totally unsafe) and the 3th. they should being closed.

[dmarkwick 261]

im not against what he said, as i said, if depends on me, i would wait the 5th or even the 6th generation of nuclear plants before using this technology.

the problem is that the current nuclear plants avaible in the world are in many case the 2th(what the hell they are totally unsafe) and the 3th. they should being closed.

How do we get to 5th or 6th generation without having a 3rd or 4th generation?

[*LK1* 10]

How do we get to 5th or 6th generation without having a 3rd or 4th generation?

we already have the 3th generation. companies are working at the 4th generation. what i tryed to say is that nuclear energy is so potentially dangerous that i would preferer to wait the 5th or even the 6th generation before using them. of course to reach the 5th or 6th we have to pass from the

4th... it was just a way to say how carefully we should treat the nuclear energy. dont know if you understand me. hope so.

[.kju 3245]

RangerPL a news magazine is not per se credible or not.

It is always down to the source - the article - the author.

Are your really that naive?

Of course large parts of the Japanese population will be contaminated due to the food

chain. The only question is to what degree. Most recent studies show strong indications

that even low level contamination has severe health impacts - not only dead bodies count.

Obviously this truth is tried to not to surface easily. After all this business has very powerful players.

Rational decision making would have kept mankind to even attempt to control nuclear technology.

You seem to forget it is the military use and it's actual application that brought men on that tainted path.

But you prefer to keep believing simple truths, right?

Edited September 6, 2011 by .kju [PvPscene]

[st_dux 26]

@PvPscene:

Reuters is a well-respected international news agency that definitely qualifies as "credible." In contrast, "most recent studies" isn't a source at all.

[.kju 3245]

Follow fukushima.physikblog.eu and you will get sources.

But sure feel free to follow your shallow view.

Reuters in one of the very few news filter for the complete world.

You may want to think about that and educate yourself.

[nettrucker 142]

Reuters is owned by the Rothchilds family that should say enough.

[st_dux 26]

You're probably right: It's all an elaborate conspiracy to cover up the fact that everyone in Japan is actually going to die of radiation exposure within the next five years. Reuters and other news sources like it are deliberately creating false reports in order to allow this to happen at the behest of apparently insane nuclear businessmen. If we don't stop nuclear power altogether, eventually we will all share the fate of Japan.

Do I have it right now?

Edited September 6, 2011 by ST_Dux

[nettrucker 142]

Probably yes!!!

[*LK1* 10]

You're probably right: It's all an elaborate conspiracy to cover up the fact that everyone in Japan is actually going to die of radiation exposure within the next five years. Reuters and other news sources like it are deliberately creating false reports in order to allow this to happen at the behest of apparently insane nuclear businessmen. If we don't stop nuclear power altogether, eventually we will all share the fate of Japan.

Do I have it right now?

omg again :bounce3:

really needed to throw out the world : "elaborate conspiracy"?

i dont know whos wrong and whos not. i can tell you that in italy the biggest building societies have a quote on the newspaper and strangely these newspapers are in favor of the nuclear plants. if this is also the case of te Reuters i really dont know. just check the main businesses of his owner.

Edited September 7, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Fukushima and Chernobyl are lessons, that if we want to continue using nuclear power (and we should, it's very efficient), we need to be serious about it. The whole industry needs to be reformed. I just think total phasing-out of nuclear power is a knee-jerk reaction that is motivated by panic and fear, not rational decisions.

Cheers

actually, Nuclear power generating electricity is one of the least efficient ways of generating electricity ... :rolleyes:

[rangerpl 13]

-Ziggy-;2018874']actually' date=' Nuclear power generating electricity is one of the [b']least[/b] efficient ways of generating electricity ... :rolleyes:

A piece of uranium the size of your fingernail can be used to generate as much electricity as four barrels of oil.

It all depends on what kind of reactor you are running as well. The new Thorium reactors are pretty efficient and safe but junkers like the Fukushima ones and the RBMK aren't. As technology advances, we build more efficient reactors.

[Dead3yez 0]

Let me just say this:

Windmills only work when and where there's wind... Oh, if there's too much wind, they don't work either. ROFL!

Many countries are miles ahead of others in terms of nuclear energy. What we don't need is tree humping, scaremongering pricks who freak out every time they hear the word nuclear. The risks become minimised as technology progresses, and the technology isn't exactly new is it now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_in_France.svg

When coal and oil run out / become too expensive, it's not me who wants to be pushed back to the stone age.

[rangerpl 13]

Nettrucker's most recent argument doesn't make any sense.

You want a real conspiracy theory?

Nuclear power threatened the oil industry so big oil corporations engineered the Three Mile Island incident and created general fear of a full nuclear meltdown. Then Chernobyl exploded (because it was a piece of shit reactor) and they jumped on it, using the press to create even more panic that radiation-caused cancer is spreading throughout Europe. So, as a result they were able to successfully scare the congress into passing anti-nuclear bills that restricted reactor construction. As a result, we are stuck with outdated, dangerous reactors and can't build any new ones while the oilmen are swimming in money.

Your "ALL THE NUCLEAR COMPANIES ARE SPREADING PROPAGANDA BECAUSE THEY ARE GREEDY AND EVIL" argument is rather illogical, considering the fact that oil companies hold most of the power (remember the Rockefellers got rich off oil), and, let's face it... nuclear power would decrease demand for oil. So it would actually make more sense to believe that oil companies are financing the anti-nuclear movement than to believe that nuclear companies are trying to play down the Fukushima disaster because they are greedy.

Tl;dr: Rich oil tycoons are against nuclear power because it cuts into their bottom line.

Edited September 8, 2011 by RangerPL

[walker 0]

Hi all

A new report has revised the estimate for the initial release of radiation from Fukushima it has trebled the amount initially released to nearly 15,000 terabecquerels:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/09/11/Japan-atomic-leak-3-times-first-estimate/UPI-89011315751809/?spt=hs∨=tn

Since then Fukushima has been estimated to be pumping out an additional terabecquerel per hour. Thus bringing total admitted/known releases to around 20,000 terabecquerel currently there is no plan or system to stop the releases only a plan to shift the releases up chimneys so that it is dispersed further from the plant and perhaps away from Japan, Americans take note.

http://fairewinds.com/content/arnold-gundersen-fukushima-update-aileen-mioko-smith-rising-radiation-levels-japan-and-gover

Walker

Edited September 12, 2011 by walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

Interesting paper on Nuclear safety since Fukushima from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

Deconstructing the zero-risk mindset: The lessons and future responsibilities for a post-Fukushima nuclear Japan

Tatsujiro Suzuki

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/9.full.pdf+html

Abstract

Months after the accident unfolded at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the nuclear crisis continues. Though the worst, it seems, has passed, many technical, social, legal, and economic hurdles must be overcome. Major short-term challenges include stabilizing the reactors and managing more than 100,000 tons of contaminated water, as well as cleaning up the site, which still contains a large amount of contaminated debris from the accident. Long-term challenges include dealing with spent fuel in the storage pools and damaged fuel in the reactors, as well as decommissioning the reactors. In a 670-page report to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Japanese government explored its next steps in managing the crisis. In this article, the author revisits the tragedy at the nuclear station and highlights a few of the most pressing—and most challenging—of the government’s plans. The author writes that Fukushima should contain lessons not just for Japan but for all 31 countries with nuclear power.

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/5/9.full

The unforeseen knock-on effects of a Nuclear accident continue to be realised even the fireworks are having to be scrapped over radiation fears:

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110920p2g00m0dm006000c.html

Meanwhile the Radiation from Fukushima is moving inexorably around the Pacific.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8764117/Radioactive-cesium-from-Fukushima-on-tour-of-Pacific-Ocean.html

And the Nuclear Business is happy to take the profits but does not want to cover the costs as it looks like TEPCO intends to leave radioactive soil where it is and not bother to clean it up, dumping the clean up costs on local and national tax payers:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109150422.html

Incedentaly that is the exact same Tax Payer will pay for clean up plan as exists currently in the US.

Personally if I was a Mayor of an affected Neighbourhood in Japan I would Hire some trucks with lead shielding inside dump the waste in front of TEPCO's office then send them the bill.

As insurers refuse to insure:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109160361.html

TEPCO is running out of money and is slashing its payroll and pensions:

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109190146.html

Siemens is cutting its losses and getting out of the industry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14963575

Hardly surprising then that India is joining the rush of Nations quiting Nuclear, now that the full costs a Nuclear Power are beginning to be understood as it Postpones the reactors it was due to buy from France's EPR:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2468399.ece

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 20, 2011 by walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

Hero Fukushima ex-manager who foiled nuclear disaster dies of cancer

Published time: July 09, 2013 13:32

Edited time: July 09, 2013 16:32

The former Fukushima supervisor of damage control works at the tsunami-devastated nuclear power plant has died of cancer. His decision not to follow a corporate order prevented Chernobyl-like explosions of overheated Fukushima reactors...

http://rt.com/news/fukushima-manager-yoshida-dies-cancer-829/

This comes as there are increasing signs of that the water table has been compromised and as radioactive Cesium Levels are on the rise.

Radioactive cesium level soars 90-fold at Fukushima in just 3 days

Published time: July 09, 2013 13:28

Edited time: July 09, 2013 16:06

Levels of radioactive cesium-134 in a well at Fukushima nuclear power plant are up to 90 times higher than just three days ago, and may spread into the Pacific Ocean. Meanwhile, 10 applications to restart reactors under stricter rules have been received.

TEPCO, the company that operated the plant and is now in charge of the cleanup and decommissioning, said that cesium-134 levels in the well water were at 9,000 becquerels per liter, 150 times the legal level. While cesium-137 measured 18,000 becquerels, 200 times the permitted level.

Cesium-137 has a half-life of 30 years and the readings were some 85 times higher than they had been three days earlier.

These are the highest cesium levels found since the March 2011 disaster.

http://rt.com/news/radiation-levels-soar-fukushima-839/

The fear is that one of the cores that penetrated its housing may have melted again, pooled, and become more active. The reactions processes in meltdown cores is complex beyond our ability to calculate.

I was unsure whether to start a new thread moddies, I will be happy to do so if needed.

Kind Regards walker

[Sealife 22]

Business as usual , the French will start building the next gen in the UK shortly .

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Any chance the US navy can use their LENR radiation transmuting technology on this? Personally I think all Nuclear Power should end and we should buy more oil and Gas from the Russian Federation.

Do you think it's tasteless that they link his oesophageal cancer to heavy smoking when it's obvious the radiation caused it?

Edited July 9, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[ric 1]

I wonder what would happen if ALL the worlds nuclear power plants went unmanned indefinitely along with the "waste" sites.

[Dwarden 1125]

I wonder what would happen if ALL the worlds nuclear power plants went unmanned indefinitely along with the "waste" sites.

not much different from any advanced or hazardeous biolab, chemlab, chemical plants, rafinery or similar ....

in fact ... radioactivity is quite often increased after any major volcanic eruption ... so even for nature it's not that abnormal ... difference lays in the level of exposure on the sites