Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Panic Over Fukushima

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#71

Post by justatdotin »

sageikosa wrote: post #41
mbateman wrote: post #6

Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases of cancer seems pretty bad.

Over 15K people were killed in the quake and tsunami. On the scale of "badness", ~200 projected cases is not a scale tipper. Not to trivialize the additional projected cancer risks, just to put it in perspective.

what other industry gets to benchmark social license against this tsunami? What other unacceptable risks should be weighed up against 15,000 deaths "to put it in perspective"? On the scale of badness, how many deaths does an industry need to be responsible for until its "a scale tipper"? This is a very poor way of weighing up the very real ongoing risks and hazards presented by the nuclear power industry.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#72

Post by nacker »

pheon wrote: post #65
nacker wrote: post #46

The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves." The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life, the destruction of homes, fa…

"that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in Japan is just that. A myth" This is just wrong. Japan is importing natural gas at prices x2-x5 higher than before. Causing Japans Trade balance (positive for nearly 30 years) to swing negative which is going to cause un-known and negative consequences for economy if this continues. Energy both in availability and price is the economic engine that drives developed na…

"This is just wrong. Japan is importing natural gas at prices x2-x5 higher than before. Causing... ".

Correlation, causation... You might want to take into account that there are many other economic factors which influence that, such as the ongoing global banking crisis, and Japan's debt ratio of 220 percent of gross domestic product, according to the International Monetary Fund, by far the largest ratio of any Group of Seven country.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-04/japan-s-debt-sustai...

This is not a result of gas imports. I can only assume that you are not familiar with Japan's economic problems before Fukushima if you think they are.

Your personal car analogy is cute, but not very relevant.

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#73

Post by [deleted] »

jbuzbee wrote: post #34
JPRan wrote: post #21

To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.

As for me, I live in Denver with my family which according to the exposure map, is about the same as living within 25 miles of Fukushima

[deleted]

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#74

Post by nacker »

tokenadult wrote: post #64

The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller h…

"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country."

OK, I don't know if anyone else finds this to be a strange statement, but I do.

First, no one is saying that shutting down 50 of 52 nuclear power power plants, providing 30% of Japan's electricity supply is an economic benefit. Would that even make sense?

But "bad for the country" is a very different proposition.

"Japan has shut down over 95% of the power plants which produce radioactive waste which lasts for thousands of years."

Bad for the country?

While Japan continues to need electricity (for SHORT TERM CONVENIENCE) , and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the PRODUCTION OF ENERGY WHICH RESULTS IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS).

Yeah. Right.

What IS good for the country? Short term consumption, or long-term sickness, death and mutation? What would Hoppe say, in terms of a time preference analysis?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#75

Post by justsee »

alanfalcon wrote: post #62

Handy radiation dose effect chart provided by Randall of XKCD (note: 1 microsievert = 0.0001 rem) http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/ Perhaps an interesting meta-discussion is the phenomenon of how choice of units affects the framing of a discussion. 0.1 rem doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 1,000 μSv, though of course both numbers are completely meaningless to most lay people.

TEPCO measured radiation levels of 10 Sv in the basement of Reactor 1 in June this year [1].

In March TEPCO measured radiation levels of 73 Sv/h in the container vessel [2]. A Fukushima worker tweeted a radiation level estimation of > 1000 Sv for another part of the reactor (the endoscope used for radiation testing is only rated to 1000 Sv, so cannot be used) [3].

The radiation level next to Chernobyl immediately after the meltdown was 300 Sv/h.

Also in March, Arnie Gundersen of FaireWinds went to Tokyo to collect soil samples from parks and streets, and on testing the samples back in the US concluded they would be considered radioactive waste in the United States. [4]

The XKCD cartoon was produced during the perceived hysteria following the aftermath and reporting of the Fukushima radiation and fallout, but the history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern over Fukushima radiation is depressingly justified.

[1] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120629a7.html

[2] http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-vessel...

[3] https://twitter.com/Happy11311/status/184586152186097664

[4] http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-co...

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#76

Post by Tichy »

tjoff wrote: post #12
radu_floricica wrote: post #7

> 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…

They were not designed to be able to resist an earthquake of that magnitude so I fail to see how it can be an failure from an engineering perspective (the fact that most plants handled it fine should if anything suggest that, from an engineering perspective, it was a success).

Could you forward your comment to the author of Dilbert, please?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#77

Post by damienkatz »

nacker wrote: post #74
tokenadult wrote: post #64

The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller h…

"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country." OK, I don't know if anyone…

> RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS

Honest question, isn't the fuel also lethal, and decaying it makes it less lethal? I understand storing the waste might be somewhat problematic, but is it really that hard to put it somewhere safe?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#78

Post by Nicole060 »

JPRan wrote: post #21

To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.

Yeah, losing your present lifestyle and job to go live in one of the most xenophobic country of the earth, and one that doesn't have a lot of skilled English speakers at that, just to make a point, sounds like a good plan, right. You really have to be one of those "wapanese", people from the west who are obsessed with japan, to be insane enough to do such a thing through your own will. You don't have a choice if you're employed at a company that does business in Japan and you have to move there for a year or two. But someone who does it with nothing compelling him to ? Madness. Japan is the last country I'd want to live in, among the developed, industrial countries of the world.

People talk about racism in Europe and America. Well, of course racism is still alive and kickin', but they don't know what racism is until they take a look at Japan. In the west we're at the point where we're taking in lots of immigrants from diverse background, be it educated or uneducated, from various countries and cultures in the world. That isn't the case in Japan. It's already kinda exceptional for an European to live in Japan.

It is ridiculous to expect anyone to go live in Fukushima just to make a point. Hell, it might be technically impossible. For a white foreigner to work in Japan, you have to take an upper class job, that is, something in engineering, education, entertainment.. or else you'll never get any work visa. But the thing is, there probably ain't a lot of those jobs in the evacuated area of Fukushima. So what you are asking him to do might even be impossible. There might be a way if that person is willing to travel long distances from home to the workplace.. who'd do that kind of stupid effort anyway just because some bloke on the internet asked him so ?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#79

Post by slurgfest »

nacker wrote: post #74
tokenadult wrote: post #64

The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller h…

"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country." OK, I don't know if anyone…

Your angry capitalization does not substitute for understanding of where the waste will go and what the actual health impact would be. We have actually had some time to see how this goes, what are the results so far?

Re: The Panic Over Fukushima

#80

Post by nacker »

damienkatz wrote: post #77
nacker wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country." OK, I don't know if anyone…

> RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS Honest question, isn't the fuel also lethal, and decaying it makes it less lethal? I understand storing the waste might be somewhat problematic, but is it really that hard to put it somewhere safe?

Damien, to be honest, once radioactive fuel is "in the country", as far as I know, feeding it into a reactor produces more radioactive waste than the original material.

But I could be wrong about that. I'm sure some of the nuclear experts, and captains of industry, and Wall Street apologists whose jobs depend on it would be able to give you a more scientific answer ;)

As far as I am aware, the safest policy for "the country", whatever that territory might be, is to get any radioactive material "outside" ASAP.

Also, as far as I am aware, there is no shortage of governments who are willing to be the hosts of such long-term poisons/weapons material, which doesn't really say much for them morally, does it?

Post reply on HN