Earlier quoted context omitted.
The relationship between Japanese governments and corporations is much more incestuous than their Western counterparts'. In any case, I don't think Tepco is completely alone in the cleanup effort, otherwise you wouldn't have people like Schneider talking about it. In fact, the irritation here comes from the fact that Fukushima continues to be a clusterfuck and everybody knows it ... except TEPCO's PR people, who keep…
"The relationship between Japanese governments and corporations is much more incestuous than their Western counterparts" On a scale of 1 to [citation needed], guess where the answer lies.
Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
41–50 of 265 posts
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#42I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all. It seems to me this is partially a failure of our current economic system, where the incentives for the indus…
I'm not sure the government would lie any less in this situation so that only leaves one option, no nuclear.
I agree, I don't think a traditional government-controlled company is the answer.
It's probably a mix of public and private entities, with a very strong and independent control authority that doesn't fear shutting things down if they find some wrongdoings (even if this means losing a lot of money in the short-term).
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#43Why are nuclear facilities frequently built near oceans and rivers? Is it due to the easy-access to water for cooling purposes? I've seen it in many places, and it just seems short-sighted in light of the potential to spread contamination when something goes wrong.
And the one that are not closed to the sea, are closed to rivers, and so are also at risk of being flooded. Another risk is that after severe heat waves, the river's water can become to "hot" to efficiently cool the reactor... Not to mention severe drought where the river level can become too low... All in all, plenty of different ways to fail.
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#44Honestly, internet snarkiness and 2 minute rages aside, I wonder what this will mean for us in the future. I wonder how US crops, the Australia climate, and Chinese drinking water quality will be affected. Is this so bad that Japan has essentially damned the entire region? Or are we going to see a mass die-off of fish around the world? It's just a really scary situation, and totally not cool.
Not to be rude but I think you're highly overestimating the effects this could have globally. The ocean is really big, and it's not like radioactivity is contagious. As for the local effects, who knows...
EDIT: by who knows, I just mean I'm not aware of the scale, I could imagine it getting pretty bad. It's just that with all the sensationalism and non comprehension of basic statistics in some articles, I feel pretty misinformed on the subject.
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#45Why are nuclear facilities frequently built near oceans and rivers? Is it due to the easy-access to water for cooling purposes? I've seen it in many places, and it just seems short-sighted in light of the potential to spread contamination when something goes wrong.
I visited brazillian nuclear plants.
They on purpose built them near the ocean, so they can just pump water inside it, and then throw back the hot water in the ocean, yet the heat is so big that it still heats up by half a degree one square kilometer of ocean or something like that.
I doubt it is feasible with a man-made pool of water.
But at least, they don't repeat fukushima stupidity of leaving the fuel rods on the ceiling (here the fuel rods are moved to a special building in a hill nearby).
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#46It would be nice to see some numbers. "around 300 tonnes of highly radioactive water had leaked from a storage tank on the site." Ok, 300 tonnes, but during which time period? Between 2011 and now? And how radioactive? What elements and how much does it contain?
another bbc article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23764382
From that I think this is a one off discovery of 300 tonnes of highly radioactive water leaking, and in general 300 tonnes of 'not as radioactive' per day leak from the radioactive buildings.
Odd that the numbers given are so similar.
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#47I'm so fucking sick of this. This level of ass-clownery makes Japan look so bad, and so diminishes its national prestige in the world, that it's almost like when Bush the junior was president of the USA. Yes, TEPCO is a private company. But it reflects on Japan the same way it would if the US government just left BP and Halliburton to decide entirely for themselves how to clean up the New Horizon oil rig disaster, wi…
By what standard do you see Fukushima as being worse? Number of casualties? Number of people who had their livelihood directly affected? The effect on the biosphere?
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#48Honestly, internet snarkiness and 2 minute rages aside, I wonder what this will mean for us in the future. I wonder how US crops, the Australia climate, and Chinese drinking water quality will be affected. Is this so bad that Japan has essentially damned the entire region? Or are we going to see a mass die-off of fish around the world? It's just a really scary situation, and totally not cool.
I would expect something between slightly higher levels of radiation in fish (which might sum up if you eat it and might "surprisingly" lead to cancer) and an apocalyptic disaster that affects every creature on earth if TEPCO fucks up anything with the large number of fuel rods, which are still stored at Fukushima.
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#49Have we gotten to the point where the Fukushima disaster has caused as many deaths as an equivalent megawattage of coal powerplants operating over Fukushima's lifetime would have?
We haven't gotten to 1 yet.
Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'
#50I think there are similarities between the nuclear power debate and the GMO debate. In both case, I think it's stupid to be fundamentally opposed to the technology/research itself. But in both case, the industry is so fucked up (lies, too close ties with control authority, ...) that I don't trust them at all. It seems to me this is partially a failure of our current economic system, where the incentives for the indus…
I can think of one thing, and no one will swallow it in our society: The engineers who work on nuclear plants must pledge their lives for its safety, and ritually kill themselves in the event of an incident.
I'm perfectly serious, in that it's within the human experience and it would work. I also suspect our world society can't wrap its head around that kind of medieval pact, and I'm not even sure I want to live in that world.
Still, knowing you have to hang yourself if the plant goes critical is pretty good motivation to do things right and not cut corners.
EDIT: well, this is getting misunderstood. My point here is: would you accept a lesser guarantee of safety? If you really believe that nuclear power can be made safe, these hypothetical engineers aren't at risk.
Let's say I took a pledge to kill myself if a meteor ever knocks the flame off the Statue of Liberty. Would any of you worry about me? No?
Maybe we shouldn't build nuke plants at the moment, then.