Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps in places like Iran and Pakistan. For the last few years we've been using old Russian warheads as fuel here in the US, which is the opposite situation.
sure, in the us(a) it may be an intrinsic (historical) link, but where nuclear power is expanding, I see weapons as a driver.
The Panic Over Fukushima
111–116 of 116 posts
Re: The Panic Over Fukushima
#112> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test. He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know th…
> I can't see what test Fukushima passed They had a disaster much bigger than was planned for, multiple failures, both human and machine and even so nobody died from it. At worst, some might eventually succumb to cancer someday. But it's radiation, so people are still more scared of it than the tsunami that killed everyone. I mean, nobody is talking about how to make sure that we're better prepared for the tsuanmis t…
Re: The Panic Over Fukushima
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of a half-life explains why LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS is a bit of an overselling of the situation. The more radioactive a substance is, the shorter its half life. That is, the sooner it will become less radioactive. And vice versa: if a substance has a long half life, it will simply emit less energy per unit of time. It's just inverse formulae. Nothing magical. But people imagine high-powered radioact…
Jacques, I feel reluctant to disagree with you, because to search out the supporting references is a bit of a chore, but I had a good education in physics, I was a very good student, and I am confident that lethal for thousands of years is not overselling of the situation. If anything, thousands of years is underselling , as hundreds of thousands would be more accurate.
Really? If that were true, you'd be able to answer him easily with facts and explanations that draw on those facts to provide an integrated understanding of reality.
I have a friend that just graduated from a nuclear engineering program. He is well-educated in physics.
Re: The Panic Over Fukushima
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a stunningly ignorant risk assessment. Unit 4 has significant structural damage, and contains the most (and most recently used) fuel rods, stored outside the containment wall. Another 7.5 earthquake could cause a collapse triggering a fuel rod fire that could not be put out. TEPCO's plan states that they cannot begin removing fuel rods until 2013, or possibly 2014. [1]. "There is as much cesium in the fuel poo…
>That's a stunningly ignorant risk assessment. Or maybe it's just a rational one. None of what you've brought up contradicts my point. The problem isn't ignorance on my part, but rather hysteria on yours. Really, if this is the way you approach life I'm surprised you have the courage to get out of bed in the morning. >Unit 4 has significant structural damage, and contains the most (and most recently used) fuel rods,…
That you would assert that the only people who need to be concerned with radiation are people 'living in a containment vessel' is simply absurd.
All you're doing now is applying the industry's standard response to rational concerns over a disastrous reactor incident: paint public concern as ignorant 'hysteria', engage in a bit of character assassination ("I'm surprised you have the courage to get out of bed in the morning"), and gloss over the seriousness of the situation, and impacts ("it's only 20 km").
Your stance also clearly indicates you've read little on the impact on the ground in Fukushima over the last year. I don't think there's much to be gained from discussing this issue with you, as at any point you'll be arguing with a concocted mental model of an opponent who is 'hysterical' and 'ignorant', and bring only arrogance and snark to the table. Boring.
Re: The Panic Over Fukushima
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct that the shuttering of the plants has been bad for everybody. Power is already more expensive and another rate increase (10% or so) is imminent. The air is dirtier. The whole place is a lot more uncomfortable (to comply with mandatory energy cuts, the Tokyo office in which I am typing this very post no longer has any climate control on weekends... I have a frozen gel-pack wrappped around my head and s…
Coping with summer heat is actually possible without air conditioning. I know because I live now in a country where air conditioning is virtually inexistent in spite of summer temperatures comparable to Tokyo's (although usually less humid). Insulation is a major factor and probably a main reason why you consider air conditioning in Tokyo that important: Insulation is virtually virtually virtually, i.e. air condition…
They did this using a lot of the simple things you suggest, turning off stuff (many places got downright dim), reducing cooling, people wearing less clothing, reduced train frequency, etc.
Unfortunately this summer they seem to have given up all of that, and are simply burning a lot more oil generating electricity. I'm not sure why they didn't try to maintain the "save electricity" campaigns, because they actually were effective (some of that, no doubt, due to the implied threat: "if you don't, back to the rolling blackouts!").
[I think the "Japanese heating is inefficient" is a bit misleading -- Japanese houses are traditionally pretty poorly insulated, but they're also not very large, and tended to use localized heating (everybody huddling around a heater) instead of keeping the whole place toasty. The ultimate expression of this, of course, is the kotatsu, which reduces heating needs to a well-insulated 0.2 m^3 space focusing on everybody's feet! :) Newer buildings tend to be better heated, and hopefully they can match that with better insulation.]
Re: The Panic Over Fukushima
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of a half-life explains why LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS is a bit of an overselling of the situation. The more radioactive a substance is, the shorter its half life. That is, the sooner it will become less radioactive. And vice versa: if a substance has a long half life, it will simply emit less energy per unit of time. It's just inverse formulae. Nothing magical. But people imagine high-powered radioact…
Jacques, I feel reluctant to disagree with you, because to search out the supporting references is a bit of a chore, but I had a good education in physics, I was a very good student, and I am confident that lethal for thousands of years is not overselling of the situation. If anything, thousands of years is underselling , as hundreds of thousands would be more accurate.
However, "lethal" is a bit of an ambiguous term when applied to the waste from the nuclear power generation. After cooling down, the fuel assemblies will most certainly be emitting ionizing radiation that will be detectable for hundreds of thousands of years, as you suggest. This does NOT mean it is "lethal" for this time period. UNLESS you open one of the assemblies and make an industrial waste smoothie. Most of the long lived isotopes contained in the assembly will be deadly as heavy metals. So there is still danger, but it is easily manageable, just like the waste from many other industrial processes (like making solar panels, or batteries for hybrids for instance).