Live data from Hacker News

Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

bbc.co.uk

61–70 of 265 posts

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#61
post #22
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Except that the Fukushima disaster is about 100 times worse than the New Horizon spill. Really? Everyone is terrified of the radiation bogeyman, but I'd bet there were more injuries and deaths as a result of New Horizon.

Yeah, well, it's easy to make bets on events that will still be playing out hundreds of years after we are all dead, isn't it. Radioactive contamination of the food supply, the oceans, and tens of thousands of people exiled from their hometown for the rest of their lives. 17 injured and 11 dead rig workers is easily comprehended and instant. Doesn't really mean that disaster was worse, though. Just easier to contempl…

>>hundreds of years after we are all dead

>>Radioactive contamination of [...] the oceans

Sigh... bad scare mongering.

How many percent has the background radiation in the Pacific ocean increased by Fukushima?

(Hint: radioactive water is very, very diluted after much less than one century. :-) )

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#62
post #45
post #23

Why 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 th…

The Shearon Harris reactor in North Carolina has a man-made lake for it's cooling. The water in there is slightly warmer than ambient temperatures. I believe one of the reasons not to add any additional reactors (when the NRC made additional licenses available a few years ago) was because they'd have to significantly increase the water acreage and the utility didn't have the land for it.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#63
post #55

Although it's possible this is really bad, I'm surprised by the lack of skepticism in this discussion so far. Mycle Snyder is described as an "independent consultant," with no mention of scientific or engineering credentials. There are quite a few people who make a living as consultants by exaggerating nuclear dangers. The article also didn't give any numbers at all. How much radioactivity are we talking about here?…

Nearly every Fukushima mega-scare story I've encountered seems to go back to Arnie Gunderson, who is a professional anti-nuclear consultant.

At the same time, I see a near information blackout from other authorities. There just doesn't seem to be much good information on this one way or the other.

Radiation is very easy to detect. If there's a serious leak, people outside Japan could see it. Where is this data?

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#64

> 'much worse than we were led to believe' We've heard this one before, from the same people. We're too slow to learn. Too slow compared to the ever increasing amplitude of the technology we create.

A rule of thumb I use for dealing with pronouncements from the government: If it's bad news, it's actually twice as bad as they say it is. If it's good news, it's actually half as good as they said. Thus far, it's proven reasonably accurate.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#66
post #25
post #23

Why 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.

Yes, that's the reason. Without massive amounts of water for cooling it's not possible to use current technologies.

Interesting. The NSA facility is designed to use a massive amount of water daily (17 million gallons a day), and it is nowhere near an ocean.

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/massive-nsa-data-...

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Mistakes aren't deterministic, they are largely probabilistic. While ritual suicide might make the victims of an accident feel better, they are ultimately unproductive - there are many classes of disastrous errors that have nothing to do with negligence. Not to mention also, even in incidents with a preventable cause, it is exceedingly rare for there to be a singular cause. Chernobyl, for example, was the culmination…

While I do think a "vast number of errors and safety lapses" is unlikely to come out of a cult (note the word) of engineering which embraces ritual suicide as the cost of failure...

This is about human psychology, rather than reliability in the engineering sense. I truly believe it would lead to better safety, but not perfect safety.

The idea is that yes, all or most of the engineers involved in a nuclear accident of any significance would kill themselves. Not only would their knowledge be lost, their fellow nuclear engineers would carve their names on a black stone, bury it in the earth beneath their corrupted stain, and never mention them again. Their families would be rewarded only if they showed honor by staying to fight the nuclear corruption, and dying honorably when the disaster is contained.

This won't work perfectly, but it would let society as a whole live with the contradiction inherent in nuclear power: it sustains us, while running the risk of turning our children's children into walking bags of cancerous mutation.

This is also pure thought experiment: what would it take to have a culture of safety as serious as the threat of nuclear disaster? I'm not willing to pay this price, and yet, I'm thoroughly familiar with the mass balance equations governing extractable energy and haven't a clue how to post-carbon without at least some nuclear.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#69
post #47
post #2

I'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?

Personally, my weighting factors are:

1. Number of people who died, or will die, weighted by how they die -- painful slow death by internal organ cancers being pretty far up there on my chart.

2. Number of people who have traumatic long term health episodes, like cancer, that degrade their quality of life. Even if it isn't until much later.

3. Number of people who have to leave long-established hometown territory and give up their homes, to live in crappy housing (way better than an American FEMA trailer, but still sad) until they die.

4. Number of children who get thyroid cancer caused by radioactive contamination that would not have otherwise -- even though Japan has arguably the best health care system in the world, and virtually all of these kids will live. Still sucks to have cancer and surgery when you're 8.

5. Incidental casualties (including cleanup workers). The actual local Fukushima plant boss became something of a hero after telling Tokyo (as in Tokyo Electric Power Company) to fuck off and calling his own shots during the worst of it. He died of cancer[1] last year, and also had a brain hemorrhage last year, ostensibly none of which was related. But there were a lot of young workers that went in there and like, did manual labor. They might be alive, but a lot of them aren't all gonna be fine.

6. Degradation of the best food on earth. I read in a Seattle newspaper (I'm pretty sure) that effectively all tuna now commercially caught have higher levels of cesium than before Fukushima. First the mercury, now this? NO FUCK YUO!!

And here in Japan it's like spinach, potatoes, meat, fish... they can only test like 0.1% of it (which is bullshit but that is another post).

7. And, since I am me, my personal standard of how fucked it was accrues bonus points for: each of the 17 times I was forced to choose between not bathing or bathing in cesium water (we did Perrier sponge baths at first but then bottled water became too scarce to use other than for drinking), the 1 time my local supermarket (high-end rich-people supermarket btw) had to hand me a letter apologizing for selling me beef with illegally high cesium levels, and the 50 hours I spent roaming Tokyo in search of clean bottled water in the aftermath.

I just can't see any reality where Fukushima isn't worse than New Horizon, on balance. Not that New Horizon wasn't bad. It just wasn't one of the worst disasters since I have been alive, where Fukushima was.

[1]: ht NO tp NO NO SORRY ://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/09/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-masao-yoshida-dead-cancer_n_3568293.html

[2]: Man I really thought I was linking to NY Times, which I will now: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-yoshida-n...

At least that accidental huffington link explains why my computer had been audibly churning out all sorts of sad (but unrelated) human interest stories while I typed that post....

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#70

Why is the japanese government letting TEPCO deal with the disaster on their own? Why is the rest of the world letting Japan deal with the disaster on it's own? Contaminating the Pacific Ocean constantly with radioactive water surely affects a lot of other states. This is something experts (TEPCO is obviously not in this position) should handle. The bill for handling the disaster could then be presented at a later ti…

capitalistic society at it's finest.
Post reply on HN