Japan Confirms First Radiation-Linked Death Out of Fukushima (bbc.co.uk) 179
Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare announced for the first time that a man employed at the Fukushima nuclear power plant died of lung cancer linked to radiation exposure. "The man, who was in his 50s, died from lung cancer that was diagnosed in 2016," reports the BBC. "Japan's government had previously agreed that radiation caused illness in four workers but this is the first acknowledged death." From the report: The Fukushima reactor suffered meltdowns after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami in March 2011. Cooling systems were wrecked at the plant on Japan's north-east coast and radioactive material leaked out. The employee who died had worked at atomic power stations since 1980 and was in charge of measuring radiation at the Fukushima No 1 plant shortly after its meltdown. He worked there at least twice after it was damaged, and had worn a face mask and protective suit, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare said. After hearing opinions from a panel of radiologists and other experts, the ministry ruled that the man's family should be paid compensation.
Third, not first (Score:3)
The first two were found in the basement turbine room a few days after the accident. But if "out of Fukushima" implies "out of" as opposed to "in", sure.
Re:Third, not first (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, horrific isnt it.
Why dont people take this more seriously? I mean it haves the estimated 800,000 deaths a year thanks to coal power look like nothing!
I mean, 3 humans, lives snuffed out by the horror of nuclear power - and what does it give us? can anyone think of a single benefit?
We urgently need to close down ALL nuclear power! Think of the children!
Re:Third, not first (Score:4, Funny)
So many idiots will take you serious.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried about the 6 million killed each year by sucking on paper tubes full of chemically processed leaves any more. Clearly we need to ban all power plants
You jest, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
You jest, but at this point, I think we'd get a lot more out of shuttering all our coal-based power-plants than yanking tobacco.
Most of the boomer smokers, many of whom took 'Tobacco is good for you' to their graves, are dead. Folks who smoke *today* don't only know they have it coming, but they've been told all about it by their doctors, teachers, and television for most if not all their lives. They're doing it to themselves and they know it.
What we need to address that problem is more education and recove
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing it to themselves and they know it.
If you can show me an equally effective way to get the pot off my breath, then I'm all ears and I'll happily give them up. But driving while your breath smells like pot is illegal and I'm convinced people can't smell the cannabis under the tobacco.
Re:Third, not first (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. Objecting to nukes because of safety is silly.
Objecting to nukes because of economics makes much more sense. They are far too expensive, and the cost is going up while the cost of solar, wind, and storage is falling.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Objecting to nukes because of safety is silly.
Objecting to nukes because of economics makes much more sense. They are far too expensive, and the cost is going up while the cost of solar, wind, and storage is falling.
I've seen the economics and here's a report that seems to get cited often:
https://www.lazard.com/media/4... [lazard.com]
On the second page of the PDF there's a chart showing that solar is indeed quite inexpensive compared to nuclear. There is also a warning at the top of the graph that costs addressing the intermittent nature of solar and wind were not taken into account. Solar power with storage is not cheap, and neither is putting solar on rooftops. Solar power is only cheap when there is no storage (meaning relian
Re: (Score:3)
As if. You'll just shift the goalposts some more.
Stop trying to play the reasonable man. Every topic on energy related matters you turn up to spout nuclear industry talking points. You are either a shill or a True Believer, so either way you will never change your mind publicly.
Baseload (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are offload only.
What is that supposed to mean?
That leaves very few baseload energy generations
Baseload is aline on a graph. It does not care if it is generated by 24/7/365 plant at 95% or by a intermittent solar plant or wind plant.
Load following plants have to follow demand either around demand change or demand change + renewable change, who cares?
Unless you produce significantly more power than your base load line, you have no need or use for big storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Objecting to nukes because of economics makes much more sense. They are far too expensive, and the cost is going up while the cost of solar, wind, and storage is falling.
US costs are going up because each nuke is still a site-built science fair project that requires individual plant approval. China is building them for less, and will probably be the first country to offer factory-built modular reactors.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
How much would your next vacation cost if Boeings had to be built at each airport and then individually qualified?
Re: (Score:2)
In a world where the only metric of value is cost - that would be a reasonable statement. We don't live in such a world.
Re: (Score:3)
Nuclear requires a large investment upfront but is very cheap in the long run.
Renewables seem cheap when you compare nameplate capacity but are _extremely_ expensive once you count the 3*nameplate capacity required to get to 70% energy delivered plus the full capacity backup and fuel for the remaining 30%. Hydro and other storage simply cannot cope with the long periods of low renewables production that happen frequently.
Really? According to the EIA natural gas, solar and onshore wind all have nuclear (even advanced nuclear) beaten pretty thoroughly in terms of LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) which is: "... an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset over its lifetime divided by the total energy output of the asset over that lifetime.". It's kind of interesting to see the relative reductions in LCOE over the last 10 years, the numbers for nuclear have dropped to be su
Re: (Score:2)
If your wind plant does not produce nameplate or more power, you have placed it at the wrong place.
And that you knew before. How one comes to the idiotic idea that you have to take nameplate times 3 is beyond me.
E.G. without storage, it does not matter how much solar power you install. At night the sun is down, obviously.
Hydro and other storage simply cannot cope with the long periods of low renewables production that happen frequently.
Strange that this is not happening in the countries that have lots of re
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the waste becomes safe in 30 years, but Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.
We can dig very deep holes and put the high level waste in the ground.
And I think Plutonium 239 can be used as reactor fuel too.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the waste becomes safe in 30 years, but Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.
We can dig very deep holes and put the high level waste in the ground.
And I think Plutonium 239 can be used as reactor fuel too.
If that's true it is down-cycling, eventually you always end up with highly dangerous radioactive waste you'll have to stockpile for tens of thousands of years.
Re: (Score:2)
We can dig very deep holes and put the high level waste in the ground.
We could do that, but it would be wasting 95% of the energy in the original fuel. The long-term radiation in nuclear waste represents more exploitable energy. We need breeder reactors and isotope separation to turn it into new fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
We need breeder reactors and isotope separation to turn it into new fuel.
Can't have it. Freaking hippies lose their shit every time you bring it up.
Re: (Score:2)
If Fukushima would have been a Plutonium breeding/burning reactor, half of Japan would now be completely uninhabitable
So much to your "Freaking Hippies" analogy. Would you really like 50 million shintoists-ists invade your country and spread their unholy religion?
Re: (Score:3)
So much to your "Freaking Hippies" analogy. Would you really like 50 million shintoists-ists invade your country and spread their unholy religion?
Humm... Are you asking if I would rather have 50 million Shintoists or the 50 million fundamentalist Christians I already have? Let me show the Japanese where to park....
Re: (Score:2)
I was more joking about those idiots who claim Europe is overun by millions of islamists. ...
Anoying that no one yet has modded me +5 funny
Re: (Score:3)
I think you missed that joke by about 8046.72 km. I give you a 'A' for effort. I often wind up being modded a troll instead of the +5 funny so I feel your pain. I will just like to think that I have superior senses of humor than them. Doesn't make it true, but I like to think that.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a german saying: Humor ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht. :)
You can not really translate that to english. Try your luck with google
Re: Third, not first (Score:5, Informative)
A nuke plant might operate for 60 years. All the waste must be safely stored. Storage is not free, and security is expensive.
A hydroelectric dam will last that long too, as will a coal fired power plant. These sites must also be kept secure. Storing the spent fuel on the same site as the nuclear power plant is common practice, meaning the storage may not be "free" but it is minimal and included in the cost of constructing and maintaining the site. If the Democrats hadn't been holding up nuclear material disposal sites like Yucca Mountain for 30 years we'd have had this problem solved. There is no storage problem but what the Democrats created.
Some of the waste becomes safe in 30 years,
Actually 30 years is the half life of some of the more dangerous isotopes. A "rule of thumb" on when this becomes safe is ten half lives, so more like 300 years.
but Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years.
First of all Pu-239 is a very valuable material for nuclear fuel and weapons, storing this as "waste" is idiotic. Second, the radiation flux is an inverse of the half life. The longer the half life the less radiation it emits in a given time period. With a half life this long it is effectively inert. It's still a heavy metal and so should be handled with care, much like one would treat lead. it's also something that is not known to blow away, dissolve in water, or otherwise move from where it's put. There's far more dangerous isotopes to deal with than Pu-239.
That sort of kills any idea of "cheap in the long run." In the long run, the short run, any way you slice it, nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity ever conceived, and will remain so.
Really? Perhaps you could provide a source for that. Oh, and include the storage costs for that wind and solar, because that's going to be necessary to match load to supply.
That said, we still need nuclear power and will need it for probably 100-250 years, and we should be building more plants. But eventually, sooner than later, the entire nuclear industry must be decommissioned and mothballed, because we have safer, cleaner, greener, less complicated and less expensive ways to generate electricity.
100 years? Well, that's convenient. That's something no one reading this could ever confirm on their own. In that time we'd probably find a way to deal with all the radioactive waste we produce now and nuclear power will be powering colonies on Pluto or something.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously? You argument pro Pu-239 is that it can be used as a weapon? I hope you are trolling, because if that's not the case you are either insane or a complete idiot.
If I had not mentioned its use as a weapon then I'd be accused of lying by omission, do you want me to lie?
The emphasis should be on the use as a fuel, especially for the use in molten salt breeder reactors like LFTR-49.
https://articles.thmsr.nl/the-... [thmsr.nl]
LFTR-49 will burn plutonium as fuel and in the process produce U-233, a fuel worthless for making weapons. This makes plutonium far more valuable as a fuel than as a weapon. LFTR style reactors don't produce plutonium like current solid fuel reactors do. De
Re: (Score:2)
The only renewable that can be paired with wind and solar to load-follow during their dips is hydro (and in a few select places, geothermal). In the developed world, all the available hydro has been exploited. So absent new hydro, we are slipping into the use of gas as a pairing. That represents a savings of carbon over coal, but it's still an emitter.
Re: (Score:2)
In the developed world, all the available hydro has been exploited.
That is nonsense. Switzerland is more or less empty, so is Austria and USA e.g. has close to zero river flow plants. I bet in Germany we easy can build a few terrawatt, if we needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Now try to get permission in those places to build some of these. In Germany, really?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure why not?
There is no big opposition against building a dam in the mountains, what would be the damn point of that?
Switzerland is planning to become the "storage hub" for all Europe over the next decades.
Re: (Score:3)
can anyone think of a single benefit?
Godzilla.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, 3 humans, lives snuffed out by the horror of nuclear power - and what does it give us?
Well it provides employment for the homeless [reuters.com] and workers from around the world [nuclear-news.net] in a high tech clean-up [huffingtonpost.com] that proves the benevolence od the nuclear industry [avaaz.org].
The people who enthusiastically support nuclear power now have a way to sincerely show their commitment to their cause by participating in the effort side by side with the workers who are cleaning it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Support nuclear power, or support nuclear power done right?
Anyone can do something incompetently, and TEPCO, BNFL and a few others are about as incompetent as you can get.
I do not see a valid argument there against nuclear power done right.
Now, you can argue that it can't be done right, but I expect you to prove that and you can't use the incompetence of Japan, Britain or America as proof. There are an infinite number of solutions to x+y that aren't 7, but that doesn't mean I can't find a solution where x+y
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see a valid argument there against nuclear power done right.
I never offered one. What I offered was that nuclear power done right involves it taking responsibility for its failures. I offered a plan of how to do Nuclear Power right almost a decade ago, right here. It is what I call Responsible Nuclear Advocacy. I'm not anti-nuclear, I'm anti-stupid and I refuse to participate in the massive circle jerk of fanbois, Nuclear Ideologist and Nuclear Justice Worriers that play loose with fact and don't respect the handling of materials that can effectively destroy o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the official death toll from Hurricane Maria is 65.
Re: (Score:2)
The focus is on "official".
Japan just apoligized to have 100dreds of vietnamese "guest workers" working unprotected at the Fukushima site for "educational purpose". Most of them will die over the next 10 or 20 years ...
Re: (Score:2)
or open sores
Hey, get your anti-open-sores propaganda out of here! Microsoft shills these days...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the ones who died to tsunami, alongside about 30.000 other people? Why not count the rest of them then?
No no no! (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you not GET the memo?
We are required to be horrified, incensed, and reactionary to a death due to nuclear power.
Those 30,000 people who died form the tsunami, well, its really just natural causes, right? right?
Same for the massive property destruction, the families torn apart! None of that comes CLOSE to a single death due to the man made satan of nuclear power!
What we need is MORE reports of ANY form of radiation measurement, because ALL RADIATION KILLS.
We should check every basement! every banana!
This
Re: (Score:2)
The only time I've heard this kind of rant is from people like you complaining about it. TFA it's calmly noting a significant milestone in the saga of the Fukushima disaster, so where are you getting it from?
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're trying to write satirically (you need practice, btw) but it's worth pointing out that the tsunami is ultimately the cause of both disasters. That if the TEPCO officials responsible for securing the coastline had done a proper job, then there would have been no deaths from the tsunami (although possibly the earthquake) and no nuclear accident.
There is only one disaster here, not two, and it has nothing to do with either nuclear power or the tsunami. It has to do with a defective sea defense.
The
Re: (Score:2)
It has to do with a defective sea defense.
You can build a high enough dike around a facility. The water will just flow around the dike then.
But you could not reasonably put an high enough dike around an island. A dike will just make the water rise higher, until it goes over the top. However it likely will prevent it to let flood to far into the hinterland.
What you can do and should do, is having buildings that can withstand the flood. With a safe zone on the roof and the upper levels.
Escape routes for human
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the ROI on the rest of the region? Do compare apples to apples.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The first two were found in the basement turbine room a few days after the accident. But if "out of Fukushima" implies "out of" as opposed to "in", sure.
Those deaths were not due to radiation. Best guess is that they sheltered there from the tsunami but the wave flooded the room and they drowned, and the radiation came later. A possible radiation link to their death would be they drowned in radioactive water, meaning that if they died from acute radiation poisoning then it only killed them sooner and would have drowned anyway. In either case it was the tsunami that killed them and any possible link to radiation in the cause of their death is ambiguous at
blindseer - slashdot's Nuclear Narcissist (Score:2)
Nuclear power doesn't live in a vacuum, if it's not nuclear power then it's something far more deadly.
Most of the Nuclear Ideologists I've seen pale in comparison to the false reality you constantly push, mere fanbois and useful idiots. If you aren't being paid for your shilling, you should be.
Blindseer, you are indeed a Nuclear Narcissist.
Re: (Score:2)
Where have I lied? How about instead of attacking the messenger you debate the message.
Here's just one of many places showing nuclear power to be safe. Go see figure 3.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Even solar is ultimately nuclear power. So is wind power. So is geothermal, as the heat from the core is from radioactive isotopes.
Fusion is better than fission, but even fission can be improved upon - yes, waste is highly radioactive, which means there's energy that you're not tapping. Besides which, the temperature you run the core and the isotopes you subject to fission (and how pure they are - nuclear fuel is 95-98% stuff that you don't want in there and which becomes the seriously problematic waste) wi
Re: (Score:2)
The first two were found in the basement turbine room a few days after the accident. But if "out of Fukushima" implies "out of" as opposed to "in", sure.
Those two drowned in the tsunami. The safety of seawater is not at issue here.
there will be more (Score:4, Informative)
This is why we need SMRs, or 4th gen reactors, that will not have these issues.
Problem is, that 3rd gen reactors continue to be built. Worst, we have given the tech for 3rd gen to China and they, with their quality, are now building those reactors.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. So, after SEVEN YEARS, we've had one (1) death as a result of a massive tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant. That's almost as many deaths as occurred commuting to work today where I live...
If everyday life were only a hundred times deadlier than nuclear power has shown itself over the decades, we'd be living in paradise!
Alas, that word "nuclear" continues to magnify the death toll to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you count US only, solar is roughly 4000x more lethal than nuclear.
In the US, apparently coal is 100,000x more lethal than nuclear power. And 50x less lethal than hydro.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Nukes get more press because radiation is scary as it is invisible. Invisible threats are more unnerving than ones we're familiar with. Pools killing thousands per year? Meh. It's a pool. People falling off
Re: (Score:2)
People falling off roofs? Well, it happens.
Maybe we could just have solar installers wear proper safety gear.
It's probably not a good idea to explain coal plants put out significantly more radiation than nuclear plants.
Please do, I'd be interested in how you explain that whilst including all of the facts.
Re:there will be more (Score:5, Interesting)
I collected data with a calibrated geiger counter and wrote a paper on it. Admittedly in High School. I grew up near Three Mile Island. By "near", I mean, I could literally see it every day. Naturally, it was kinda mentioned in school quite a few times. One of the projects was literally going to the location where the the damaged reactor was removed, near the live reactor, across the river at the visitor/training center. I also included data points from my house. Radiation was near background. Close enough it was within the error of margin of a pretty decent geiger counter. Even within literal stone's throw from the worst civil nuclear incident in American history.
Because I wanted to do something bit different, I also included data from a coal plant and an incinerator down the river a couple miles. Incinerator was less radioactive than a smoke alarm. New facility, they filter the hell out of the output and check for that sort of thing. In case someone tosses a load of smoke alarms in their trash, as one example they mentioned. Coal plant was older and put off (from memory, so give me a bit of leeway) roughly between 3x and 5x background downwind. This was due to uranium and thorium traces in the coal. Very very tiny amounts. But builds up when you're burning a lot of coal. I didn't do an extremely through pattern, it was every quarter mile of a road for like two miles. Coal plant verified, and explained it was within allowed levels and they do have radiation monitors to shut things down if it went too high. There was actually a lot of cooperation between the local coal plants and TMI out of necessity as coal plants in the area can set off extremely sensitive internal alarms at TMI.
I probably realize I sound overly enthusiastic about nuclear power, but having grown up nearing the radiation alarms being tested every noon on Saturday for several years, I'm well aware of the potential risk.
The USAF ref I made was Constant Phoenix. Buddy of mine I know was formerly a pilot of it. His job was to fly through a nuclear weapon plume. Mostly they flew downwind from countries being suspected of developing rogue nuclear weapons. Obviously NK, but other countries as well. US coal plants were better than most back in his day, and better now. Other countries do not filter NEARLY as well, and shot out insane amount of uranium and thorium into the air in fly ash plumes. Obviously an aircraft designed to find signs of underground nuclear testing could see it, as it was designed for that specific purpose. So, they could and did navigate using it.
Re: (Score:2)
As to the deaths in Chernobyl and Fukishima, it would be a lie to say that there were none. But, interestingly, it is still far less than what Coal doe
Re: (Score:3)
There is R&D happening on nuclear power, just not so much in the USA.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has a reputation as a capable regulator with many decades of experience in safe nuclear plant design review and operations oversight. It also has a process that is amenable to technologies that use nontraditional fuels and coolants.
Sweden, the original home of LeadCold, has similar remote areas and a capable regulator, but it is currently lead by a government that doesn't support nuclear energy development.
As Senator Murkowski made clear during Governor Perry's confirmation hearing to become the new Secretary of Energy, Alaska has communities with similar power needs. Unfortunately, the U.S. NRC has not yet implemented an acceptable process for reviewing nuclear reactor designs that use coolants other than water.
If people in the USA want to see more nuclear power then vote, and vote for people and political parties that support nuclear power. I've read the party platform documents from both the Democratic and Republican national committees. In the Democrat platform I recall seeing the word "nuclear" only once, and that was in reference to nuclear weapons. The Republican platform nuclear power was mentioned
Re: (Score:2)
The argument for wind and solar subsidies was made on the same premise, that nothing drives development of a technology like shipping product.
What subsidies for wind and solar? From the 2005 U.S Energy Policy Act.
Solar and wind are covered under SEC.812, the two combined get one section . They have to raise 20% of their own funding for research and %50 of their own funding for Commercial with no other appropriations under the Energy Act. Instead they have to seek funding through the Small Business Act.
As opposed to Nuclear that has twenty five sections dedicated to it (SEC. 600 onwards), with funding allocations in various sections. Let's se
Re: (Score:3)
On a per kWh produced basis the subsidies for solar power is far greater.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Look at the pie chart here on where the USA gets it's electricity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You'll see that nuclear provides nearly 20% of our electricity. Wind less than 6%. Solar is producing so little energy that it doesn't even get broken out separately, and is just "other". Biomass produced more electricity than solar, and that's mostly just coal plants "greenwashing" their operation by m
Re: (Score:2)
For people interested in the facts that support the numbers in my previous post 2005 US Energy Policy Act [gpo.gov].
You may find more Nuclear subsidies in SEC 600. onwards because I haven't included all of them. There is just enough references to make the point.
Re: (Score:2)
On a per kWh produced basis the subsidies for solar power is far greater.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
The thing you are missing is that the allocations are from the tax code and if you follow the chain of documents of where that is defined it leads back to SEC.1703 of 2005 US Energy Policy Act">2005 US Energy Policy Act. [gpo.gov] That made the provision for the ARRA Act that provided the additional subsidies not provided for in the Energy Policy ACT. A program that created a lot of jobs around the US for electricians and tradesmen. Subsidies that have already ended in 2016.
Also what is not mentioned is that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans are in power, they aren't building nuclear power plants or even considering it.
The NRC has been dominated by Democrat appointed commissioners for at least 8 years, and Trump's appointments didn't get on the commission immediately after he got into office. Just how quickly do you think that they can issue licenses and ramp up on construction after 40 years of sitting on their thumbs? Give it time.
Maybe you should stop reading what they claim and start reading what they do.
It is possible to lie with words, but not with actions.
That is why it has been irresponsible to vote Republican for the last 50 years.
Well, the Republicans have been in power for nearly 2 year now and we are seeing some of the lowest unemployment, huge growth in the economy, and reductions in taxes. That's just a few off
Re: (Score:2)
But we can't exclude Trump as a problem here. There is no subject more contentious than energy and climate, but the only thing that everyone in the debate agrees on is that the worst alternative would be coal.
So guess which energy choice Trump glommed onto as his favorite toy from the toybox?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I am a fan of Nukes, but I think that we need to continue R&Ding the reactor designs.
What about developing some expertise on handling Nuclear waste? That doesn't seem to be a big spending area.
By now, all the ones being built should have been on 4th gen, if not 5th, should be failproof, and have little waste.
Well talk to the oil and coal industry and go and learn about IFR.
NuScale comes to mind.
Stupid idea, stupid concept, poorly thought out.
The reason we are still building 3rd gens is due to all the far left idiots that allow fear to replace logic/intelligence.
It has nothing to do with the defunding of the nuclear research programs by Clinton and Bush? That oil money buys a lot of lobbying. Were you to employ logic and intelligence you might find the story is a little different from the rhetoric.
As to the deaths in Chernobyl and Fukishima, it would be a lie to say that there were none.
Sure would be. However it hasn't stopped the
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't we have a highly advanced program that handles nuclear waste instead of it piling up at reactor sites around the world?
Because Democrats.
The Democrats prevented the processing of old weapon cores into fuel for nuclear reactors meaning the USA did not hold up it's end of the deal with Russia to reduce stockpiles of plutonium. USA had a deal with Japan on dealing with their stockpiles of plutonium and so now Japan has waste piling up. The Democrats held up the Yucca Mountain disposal site since 1987, so our waste is piling up at home. Democrats in the USA are why we have waste piling up at reactor sites all over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. So, after SEVEN YEARS, we've had one (1) death as a result of a massive tsunami hitting a nuclear power plant. That's almost as many deaths as occurred commuting to work today where I live...
We have one official death, and hundreds of unofficial ones. Cases where the family got a big paycheck and a terminal ill worker volunteered to clean up. Japan news regularly brings up that topic.
Re:there will be more (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a second gen reactor that took an earthquake that was a hundred times worse than one it was set up to outlive, and outlived it. Then it got hit by tsunami that basically annihilated the infrastructure in the entire region, and killed something around 15.000-30.000 people. We still don't know how many actually died, because local registries that held records of how many people actually lived in those regions were destroyed in the tsunami alongside people, and Japan has highly localized citizen registry. So the only deaths we know of are the ones that were held in registries that survived the tsunami.
This is the first radiation linked death out of that entire accident. I think it's safe to make a claim that even old reactors are safe from radiation's lethality standpoint when lethality of the entire event is considered, especially considering that nearby units 5 and 6 were in fixable condition with only minor damage, and were shut down for political reasons.
So the real problem is corruption in companies that save money on seawalls in tsunami areas and ignore warnings about it.
Re: (Score:2)
But even here, we see that CHina has SERIOUS issues with QA on building the western plants that they insisted on doing. [thediplomat.com] That was stupid on both of those companies. Oddly, if CHina has issues with those reactors, they will probably blame the western companies, rather than their own lousy workmanship. They should have allowed either the Japanese or South Koreans to do the work.
BTW, as to Fukishima, the company had several choices. Build the wall higher
Re: (Score:2)
As we know since a while after the tsunami: Either solution would have solved this. , no. The cooling system inside the reactors was destroyed by the quake.
Re: there will be more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you google a bit more?
The flew in replacement genertors.
The ersatz generators could not cool the plants?
Why? Because the pipining system was destroyed by the quake.
This is all actually old news, we know that since shortly after the final desaster.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a second gen reactor that took an earthquake that was a hundred times worse than one it was set up to outlive, and outlived it.
All the Fukushima reactors were rated to 600Gal and the site itself only experienced 150Gal.
So the real problem is corruption in companies that save money on seawalls in tsunami areas and ignore warnings about it.
Indeed, the thing that caused these reactors to explode was the criminal negligence of the TEPCO board.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima plant as a whole was rated for 7 magnitude earthquake. It took 9, survived it, and got destroyed by tsunami, not earthquake.
This disinformation campaign against nuclear is getting tiring, with same talking points that were literally debunked weeks after the tsunami still being repeated ad nauseam by religious zealots.
P.S. Reactors didn't explode. What did explode was upper floors of the already destroyed containement buildings, many days after tsunami, because TEPCO was so incompetent, they didn't
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Reactors didn't explode.
P.S. it did. After the hydrogen explosions (that is what you mention) there were several melt downs causing steam explosions, why don't you look at a picture of the site?
Re: (Score:2)
I see the "Germany controls wind" angeloshpere is back with full on mental retardation. Have you tried actually reading the sentence you're replying to in its entirety yet? It would help, since it addresses your complaint and pre-empts it in its entirety.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima plant as a whole was rated for 7 magnitude earthquake. It took 9, survived it, and got destroyed by tsunami, not earthquake.
Measurements for seismic tolerance of Nuclear Reactors is expressed in Ground Acceleration, or Gal. Since you are unable to even communicate on this subject using appropriate measures it is unlikely that you have based your opinion on fact.
This disinformation campaign against nuclear is getting tiring,
The only disinformation campaign occurring is Nuclear Ideology based on ignorance of the subject.
with same talking points that were literally debunked weeks after the tsunami still being repeated ad nauseam by religious zealots.
Funded by the Japanese Government, page 27 from the official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission [nirs.org] refers to ground acceleration the
Re: (Score:2)
>Measurements for seismic tolerance of Nuclear Reactors is expressed in Ground Acceleration, or Gal. Since you are unable to even communicate on this subject using appropriate measures it is unlikely that you have based your opinion on fact.
And measurements for entirety of the system are in magnitudes. If you can't read, and decide to be a mindless pedant on others noting that your pedantry is pointless, that's on you.
Hint: there's a whole lot to the system in addition to pressure vessel. Much of it is n
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the funniest nuclear fanboi rants I've seen in a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Your admission of defeat is duly noted.
Re: (Score:2)
You delusional comments aren't exactly high on my to do list. Your needs aren't special. You can wait until I stop laughing.
Or you can continue to demonstrate your lack of impulse control, fine by me either way.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's safe to make a claim that even old reactors are safe from radiation's lethality standpoint when lethality of the entire event is considered
If you can run away quick enough.
If the people had stayed the majourity would be dead or dying.
Re: (Score:2)
And then you realised that people have been working there the whole time. Such as this particular person.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people work with safety gear, hundreds of "guest workers" worked without gear.
You are extremely uninformed about the topic.
Why don't you go to youtube and watch a few documenetaries about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they did. The entire thing was literally about utilizing yakuza to employ the unemployables for repairs.
And even so, this is literally the first death because of it. It's so nice when you argue against yourself. Quite a consistent thread for you, due to lack of even cursory understanding of the topic of power generation. A common thread of green zealots such as yourself, after all, why would you study heresy in detail? It's dangerous for your immortal soul!
Re: (Score:2)
due to lack of even cursory understanding of the topic of power generation.
Actually I'm a kind of expert for power generation, and distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know that you consider yourself one. You already stated that Germany controls wind.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not state that Germany controls wind, you did.
Are you on drugs?
The social problem (Score:2)
Or allowing to dry laundry outdoors at dedicated spaces. Or limiting the heated/air-conditioned area of an apartment by 50 square meters per person in the architecture/construction code.
The weight of a personal car could b
Re:This time they nuked themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
‘Safety regulators say workers can be safely exposed to up to 50 millisieverts a year, but if a worker with an accumulated 100 millisieverts develops an illness after five years of exposure, that can be ruled an occupational injury. According to an expert cited by the Mainichi Shimbun, a daily newspaper, the man had been exposed to 74 millisieverts at the Fukushima plant since the accident.’
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
Medical science tells us that such a cancer is highly unlikely to be caused by exposures at these levels. There is a huge body of science to back this up.
Too easy to fool the media. Does anybody even think about the details.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical science tells us that such a cancer is highly unlikely to be caused by exposures at these levels. There is a huge body of science to back this up.
Medical science tells us that the "level" is completely irrelevant if you inhale radioactive materials, especially plutonium. As he got lung cancer, Plutonium is a bit unlikely unless he got a very high dose.
If you had bothered to read the article: his lung has hot spots of radiation. He died to lung cancer ... go figure, you are really an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had bothered to read the article: his lung has hot spots of radiation.
This is false. Did you make this up yourself or are you repeating something someone else fabricated? Cite your source if so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)