Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time • Hacker News Board

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#71

Post by gus_massa » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:36 PM UTC

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

> Yes an oil spill can affect a large area, but you don't get harmful particles washing up on the coast of the US from a spill in Japan in the same way, for example.

There is a natural level of background radiation, but it's not equal in all places. I think it's possible to detect some isotopes that crossed the ocean from Japan to USA, but if you compare the amount of additional radioactivity with the background level additional difference is tiny.

I'd like to give some tranquility with some numbers that compare the amount of additional radioactivity with other sources. (If you leave with someone, he/she is slightly radioactive. Some food are more radioactive than other. And other radiation sources like X-ray, CT, plane flight, sunbath ...)

Anyway, I prefer to post something to make you more nervous. "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... Coal plants also emit a lot of radioactive particles that are distributed worldwide.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#72

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:39 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #67

mikeash wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out. Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say…

When a coal plant fails, it just turns off. When a nuclear plant fails, you've got to get the best people on Earth and tens of billions to contain (not fix) the problem, in one of the most advanced nations on Earth. It made a huge mess that spread to Europe when Chernobyl failed. If nuclear is wide spread, what happens when human incompetence causes a plant failure in a place like Nigeria or Venezuela? Edit: also, I…

At least nuclear is possible to contain. It would cost vastly more than mere billions to contain the damage of coal. So no one even tries. And it has killed vastly more people.

But the news can't get flashy photos of areas destroyed by coal damage. It doesn't happen in big single events that the news likes to cover. So the damage seems basically invisible compared to nuclear. If the news reported on every death and environmental incident caused by coal et al, it would be banned within a year.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#73

Post by fludlight » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #59

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

Keep in mind that the death toll from Fukushima was zero.

There are other considerations than immediate direct deaths.

From Wikipedia:

> though there have been no fatalities linked to radiation due to the accident, the eventual number of cancer deaths, according to the linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety, that will be caused by the accident is expected to be around 130–640 people in the years and decades ahead...in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher relative risk of developing thyroid cancer for females exposed as infants...

> However, an estimated 1,600 deaths are believed to have occurred due to the resultant evacuation conditions...

> Summarizing all responses to questions related to evacuees' current family status, one-third of all surveyed families live apart from their children, while 50.1% live away from other family members (including elderly parents) with whom they lived before the disaster. The survey also showed that 34.7% of the evacuees have suffered salary cuts of 50% or more since the outbreak of the nuclear disaster. A total of 36.8% reported a lack of sleep, while 17.9% reported smoking or drinking more than before they evacuated.

> We know from Chernobyl that the psychological consequences are enormous. Life expectancy of the evacuees dropped from 65 to 58 years – not because of cancer, but because of depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Relocation is not easy, the stress is very big.

> A frozen soil barrier has been constructed in an attempt to prevent further contamination of seeping groundwater, but in July 2016 TEPCO revealed that the ice wall had failed to stop groundwater from flowing in and mixing with highly radioactive water inside the wrecked reactor buildings, adding that they are "technically incapable of blocking off groundwater with the frozen wall"...every day 300 tons of contaminated water leak from the crippled nuclear plant...

> On 22 August 2011, a government spokesman mentioned the possibility that some areas around the plant "could stay for some decades a forbidden zone".

> The amount of compensation to be paid by TEPCO is expected to reach 7 trillion yen. Costs to Japanese taxpayers are likely to exceed 12 trillion yen ($100 billion). In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation, decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen ($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate.

> In 2014 Japan enacted the State Secrecy Law. The Fukushima incident falls under this law and, as a "state secret", independent investigations and reports are forbidden by law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#74

Post by mikeash » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

oliv__ wrote: post #70

mikeash wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out. Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say…

I don't think that's a fair comparison. To me (and I suspect to many others), the huge difference lies in the indelibility of the damages of nuclear power. Sure, coal might kill a million people a year, but the remnants of a nuclear incident will remain for thousands of years and affect hundreds of generations after that, in ways we don't even fully understand yet.

How long will the mercury, arsenic, and other nasty pollutants emitted by coal plants stick around? What strange effects will they cause on hundreds of future generations?

For example, children and pregnant women are warned to be careful about the fish they eat because of mercury contamination. A large part of that mercury contamination comes from burning coal. That's food from 70% of the planet rendered partially unfit for human consumption by coal.

There's nothing like that for nuclear. Yes, you should avoid food grown around Chernobyl, and there have been incidents where farmers had to dump milk for a while and things like that, but no nuclear accident has ever (nor could one ever conceivably) contaminate food from so much of the planet so badly.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#75

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

marze wrote: post #6

I still don't see why they are spending years trying to make rad hard robots. A long steel tube with fiber optics to pipe in light, mirrors and optics to transmit an image down the tube would be infinitely easier. They'd need to burn a few holes, but none of the reactor vessels are intact so that wouldn't allow additional radioactive material to escape. I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium…

> I'm surprised the Japanese decision to dump the all the tritium contaminated water into the ocean hasn't made more news.

Oh you mean the dump that had 4 grams of tritium in it?

Not drinking water for sure, but less worrying than it seems at first

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/6nenrd/fukushima...

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#76

Post by colordrops » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #64

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out. Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say…

Why only compare it with fossils fuels?

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#77

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #64

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

The only reason fossil fuels don't have the same potential to go spectacularly bad is because humans don't consider enormous damage to be "spectacular" when it's spread out. Consider: coal alone kills about a million people a year. If those were all concentrated in a small area, we'd call it the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. But it's spread out over the whole world, so we just shrug our shoulders and say…

[deleted]

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#78

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

[deleted]

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#79

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:56 PM UTC

fludlight wrote: post #73

ori_b wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that the death toll from Fukushima was zero.

There are other considerations than immediate direct deaths. From Wikipedia: > though there have been no fatalities linked to radiation due to the accident, the eventual number of cancer deaths, according to the linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety, that will be caused by the accident is expected to be around 130–640 people in the years and decades ahead...in the most contaminated areas faced a 70% higher r…

Compare that number to the number who died in or were displaced by the tsunami.

Re: Japan Pictures Likely Show Melted Fukushima Fuel for First Time

#80

Post by alphonsegaston » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

ori_b wrote: post #59

Boothroid wrote: post #43

A common response from defenders of nuclear when concerns are raised is to point to the impact of other energy sources, and say that nuclear is better in those terms. But I just cannot get away from the thought that whilst in aggregate those other forms of energy (fossil fuels, etc) might be provably worse than well managed nuclear within a particular analysis, humanity does not seem capable of this good management o…

Keep in mind that the death toll from Fukushima was zero.

To the parent's point, this is entirely untrue. The yakuza colluded with the energy companies to round to their debtors and homeless people to clean up contamination.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/ho...

https://www.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE9BT00520131230

The idea that they all escaped unscathed with no impact on their health or some weren't simply "offed" for being uncooperative is laughable on its face.

That there were no deaths associated with Fukushima is only possible if you accept a demonstrably false construction of the energy industry in Japan that ignores its intersection with organized crime and government corruption, which is something that goes back decades.