On May 5th Japan may have no nuclear reactors in operation

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by ninja, Apr 15, 2012.

  1. ninja

    ninja Numbnuts

    6,925 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    From the Japan times:

    "Since the March 2011 quake and tsunami triggered the Fukushima nuclear crisis, no reactors shut down for periodic inspections have resumed operations. The two at the Oi plant are the first reactors the central government is trying to get back onstream.'

    'Of Japan's 54 commercial nuclear reactors, only the No. 3 reactor at Hokkaido Electric Power Co.'s Tomari power station is currently in operation. If none of the other units are restarted by May 5, when the Tomari reactor is scheduled to be shut down for an inspection, the nation will be left with no reactors in operation."

    I am in Japan right now. I find it interesting (and nice:) ) that Japan may have not one reactor in operation come May 5th. The government is fighting the mayors of Osaka and nearby vicinity and many residents to get two back on-line by July. Only fourteen months after the earthquake/tsunami caused the problem, all reactors in Japan may be off-line. No power shortages from what I have heard.

    The plane had to alter our flight path here to avoid flying over or near Hukushima. Maybe 30 years later it will be safe to fly over Hukushima again.
  2. burmafrd

    burmafrd Benched

    43,820 Messages
    3,379 Likes Received
    actually there have been power shortages; but the government has leaned on the media not to talk about it. Very strict energy conservation is being practiced. However the economic drain is not small; bottom line is that they NEED at least some of them operating. But the anti nuke faction is feeling its oats.

    Really stupid since what happened was a one in a billion situation with a major earthquake plus huge tsunami all hitting the same place.

    But in reality it was the inflexibility of the system that doomed the reactors; they had no procedures for this situation and were unable to improvise.
  3. Hostile

    Hostile The Duke

    119,480 Messages
    4,173 Likes Received
    A very good friend of mine and his wife have been in Sendei since July of last year. His reports about the devastation there are eery.
  4. The30YardSlant

    The30YardSlant Benched

    24,279 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    It's a shame that society has such illogical fears about nuclear power, it is by far the most promising energy source going forward.
  5. ninja

    ninja Numbnuts

    6,925 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    "Illogical fears?" Ever hear of Hukushima? In case you haven't, there was an earthquake and tsunami and it devastated the area. Oh, and by the way, there were three reactors that melted down. And it will be about 40 years until humans might be able to go within 20 miles of that place. Can't even fly over the place because it is still leaking radiation.

    Japan is a densely populated country with very limited space. An accident like Hukushima near Tokyo or Osaka would literally cripple this country and possibly ruin it.

    What is "illogical" is building nuclear power plants in a very dangerous earthquake zone near large populations. And then you still have to deal with the nuclear waste. Right now, nuclear waste from the reactors is stored in a large bath tub right next to the reactor. The reason it is there? Because they don't have anywhere to put it. Does any of that sound "logical" to you?
  6. The30YardSlant

    The30YardSlant Benched

    24,279 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    And if legendary tsunamis that wiped out entire regions were the norm you might have a point. MIGHT.

    The general uneducated population hears the word "nuclear" and runs around the room screaming. Yes, a full-blown meltdown is a catostrophic event (and no, despite what the media tells you fullblown meltdown never occured in Japan). However, they are so exceedingly rare (Two in history) that they are not worth discussing in the grand scheme of things. You don't worry about a windmill falling over or an electrical tower exploding even though both are inifinitely more common. The most common industrial accident in second and third world countries are mine collpases and coal fires, yet nobody ever talks about that.

    Yes, you can fly over Hukushima and be fine. No, they won't let you because if anyone gets cancer within 50 years they can sue the airline. You receive more radiation from any given plane flight itself than you would from flying over the region, yet irrational fear has gripped society. You receive more radiation from an x-ray than you would from being exposed to that region for an hour. A single CT scan increases your odds of cancer a full order of magnitude more than exposure to any area in Japan currently would.

    Nuclear waste storage is a problem in terms of effort, not in danger. You know what's dangerous? Coal, oil and natural gas industries. 250 people died in the US (a first-world country) as a result of those industries last year. Want to guess how many people died from anything related to nuclear power? Zero.

    So in summary, no, none of it is logical to me. It isnt any more logical than the "You can gets AIDS from a toilet seat" scare in the 80s to me.
  7. CashMan

    CashMan Well-Known Member

    2,166 Messages
    599 Likes Received

    IMO, this is like saying guns don't kill people, people kill people.
  8. SaltwaterServr

    SaltwaterServr Blank Paper Offends Me

    8,124 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Every week in travis county Texas an average of 11 people die from the effects of cigarette smoking.

    Not a single person has died from the fukushima incident, but the reactionaries would have you believe that its the worst nuclear catastrophe in the age of nuclear power. Japan cannot afford to go full gas and coal fired plants. Their economy is already on the brink of serious financial collapse due to their goveremental spending that so far has veen financed domestically so far... The irrational fearmongering by politicians and ill-informed public media is pushing them that much closer to the edge.
  9. Afigueroa22

    Afigueroa22 Well-Known Member

    1,119 Messages
    214 Likes Received
    People do kill people, murder was around long before any gun.
  10. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    35,090 Messages
    4,359 Likes Received
    Kind of a flawed comparison, isn't it?

    I'd bet most of those 11 people have been smoking for 30, 40 or 50 years.

    How long has it been since Fukushima?
  11. SaltwaterServr

    SaltwaterServr Blank Paper Offends Me

    8,124 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    So compare fukushima to the outdated and grossly mismanaged Chernobyl site that was bantered around so frequently during the early days od the incident in Japan. Same then as now, it was irrationality ruling the day and predicting mass casualties when in fact no one has yet to perish.
  12. The30YardSlant

    The30YardSlant Benched

    24,279 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    People were killing each other thousands of years before guns existed, just as deaths involving the energy industry were occuring long before the word nuclear even existed. The difference is that nuclear power has accounted for fewer deaths in the last 50 years than the coal industry accounted for globally last month.
  13. The30YardSlant

    The30YardSlant Benched

    24,279 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Chernobyl was the greatest nuclear power disaster in history and a grand total of 30 people died as a direct result of it, two in the initial explosion and 28 of radiation sickness (none of whom were wearing ANY safety equipment). In the last 25 years, approximately 90,000 people within the "danger" radiation radius have died of cancer...and given the population of that area this means that the cancer rate went up a whopping 4%.
  14. SaltwaterServr

    SaltwaterServr Blank Paper Offends Me

    8,124 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    By way of comparison, again using Travis County Texas, 14,300 people have died from smoking in that same time span. One single county in Texas.

    Add in Tarrant and you probably blow that 90,000 number away.
  15. ScipioCowboy

    ScipioCowboy More than meets the eye.

    17,845 Messages
    6,250 Likes Received
    I'm disgusted by your transparent and facile attempts to downplay the dangers of nuclear power. You seem to be forgetting (or intentionally ignoring, more likely) the most infamous nuclear disaster.

    It was the early 90s. A spaceship carrying nuclear waste was pulled into the orbit of a colonized planet where it started dumping lethal amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. The planet's inhabitants lacked the means to remove the ship from orbit, and had no choice but to send out a planetary distress signal.

    Thankfully, the Enterprise received the signal in time to...

    Oh, wait. That was a Star Trek episode.
  16. ninja

    ninja Numbnuts

    6,925 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    It is about risk vs reward. The risk in Japan's case is catastrophic and the reward is little (IMO). Japan is already getting by just fine with no nuclear power RIGHT NOW. There are no shortages as we speak.

    It is not logical to have nuclear power plants in an volatile earthquake zone at this technological stage. And Japan's population is shrinking. At the existing birth rates, Japan's population will soon be halved in the near future. Their energy consumption has peaked and should decline significantly.

    Could you imagine 54 nuclear power plants in the state of California all built in close proximity to existing faults and half of the American population living there and no place to put the waste? That is what you have in Japan right now. As an electrical engineer, I fail to see the logic of nuclear power plants in Japan. Thankfully, they seem to be on the way out.

    Japan needs to harness and milk everything they can out of wind, solar, and sea tides while they import fuels. Nuclear just isn't a rational option FOR Japan.

    The US is a different case.
  17. SaltwaterServr

    SaltwaterServr Blank Paper Offends Me

    8,124 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    A country with a very limited footprint, the size of California, with 4x the population and nuclear isn't a viable option? Are you freaking kidding???

    Wait, you aren't.

    You want to take an already crowded country and slap down how many solar cells to make up for the loss of one nuclear electrical production site? A few hundred thousand cells? How many acres would that take to offset the loss come summer time when peak energy demands come into play? The gov't has had to promote heavily massive conservation efforts to not have rolling blackouts which are almost surely to hit this summer.

    You simply don't take 30% of the production off the grid and expect to move along like nothing is going to happen.

    Milking solar, wind and tidal are minute drops in the bucket. Solar is almost freaking useless since it misses peak demand early in the morning when the population wakes up and at early evening when the population returns to their residences.

    High cloud cover, fog, any amount of low cloud cover and solar power production drops to almost nothing. So what are you going to do then? Oh, that's right, you must have a DEPENDABLE source of generation of electricity available at all times. Solar and wind are only marginal "feel good" ancillary sources of electrical production.

    Japan won't keep these reactors offline for long. Fiscally intelligent people will prevail and the almost hysterical backlash to nuclear will fade soon enough.

    Simply put, they don't have the capacity to start shuttling electricity between their respective grids, and the cost to keep over 9 gigawatts of electrical production offline is asinine and decidedly short-sighted.
  18. Zaxor

    Zaxor Virtus Mille Scuta

    8,398 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Berlin, April 6 2006: A report published today by the physician's organisation IPPNW in Germany and the German Society for Radiation Protection contradicts the claim by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that less than 50 people died as a result of the accident at Chernobyl (see IAEA press release of September 5th 2005).

    The facts presented by Dr. Sebastian Pflugbeil, President of the German Society for Radiation Protection, show that the IAEA figures contain serious
    inconsistencies. For instance, the IAEA claim that future fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia in the most heavily exposed groups are expected to
    number 4000 at the most. However, the study by the WHO, that this claim is based on, forecasts 8930 fatalities. "And when one then reviews the
    reference given in WHO report, one arrives at 10,000 to 25,000 additional deaths due to cancer and leukaemia", says Pflugbeil. These inconsistencies
    are not surprising, given the mandate of the IAEA: to promote nuclear energy. This prevents the Agency from being independent.

    According to Dr. Angelika Claussen, Chair of the German affiliate of IPPNW, the point is not to contrast the "correct" numbers with the obviously false
    ones provided by the IAEA. These cannot be claimed to have been found due to methodical problems. Essential data on the Chernobyl catastrophe have been kept secret, both in the East and in the West. Large epidemiological studies are very expensive and only possible with state support. "It is, however, possible to provide an informative basis to show to what extent and what kinds of damage we are dealing with when we are talking about the effects of Chernobyl", says Claussen.

    The IAEA is attempting to account for an evident rise in fatalities and disease by providing absurd arguments. "It is cynical, to say the least,
    when affected people in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia are told by the IAEA that they have a victim mentality, should feed themselves better and live
    more healthily", says Claussen.

    The IPPNW/GfS Report "Health Effects of Chernobyl - 20 Years After the Reactor Disaster" documents the catastrophic dimensions of the reactor
    accident, using scientific studies, expert estimates and official data:
    • 50,000 to 100,000 liquidators (clean-up workers) died in the years up to 2006. Between 540,000 and 900,000 liquidators have become invalids;
    • Congenital defects found in the children of liquidators and people from the contaminated areas could affect future generations to an extent that cannot yet be estimated;
    • Infant mortality has risen significantly in several European countries, including Germany, since Chernobyl. The studies at hand estimated the numberof fatalities amongst infants in Europe to be about 5000;
    • In Bavaria alone, between 1000 and 3000 additional birth defects have been found since Chernobyl. It is feared that in Europe more than 10,000 severe abnormalities could have been radiation induced;
    • By referring to UNSCEAR one arrives at between 12,000 and 83,000 children born with congenital deformations in the region of Chernobyl, and around 30,000 to 207,000 genetically damaged children worldwide. Only 10% of the overall expected damage can be seen in the first generation;
    • In Belarus alone, over 10,000 people developed thyroid cancer since the catastrophe. According to a WHO prognosis, in the Belarussian region of Gomel alone, more than 50,000 children will develop thyroid cancer during their lives. If one adds together all age groups then about 100,000 cases of thyroid cancer have to be reckoned with, just in the Gomel region;
    • Altogether, the number of Chernobyl related cases of thyroid cancer to be expected in Europe (outside the borders of the former Soviet Union) is between 10,000 and 20,000;
    • In more contaminated areas of Southern Germany a significant cluster of very rare tumours has been found amongst children, so-called neuroblastomies;
    • In Germany, Greece, Scotland and Romania, there has been a significant increase in cases of leukaemia;
    In a paper published by the Chernobyl Ministry in the Ukraine, a multiplication of the cases of disease was registered - of the endocrine system ( 25 times higher from 1987 to 1992), the nervous system (6 times higher), the circulation system (44 times higher), the digestive organs (60 times higher), the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissue (50 times higher), the muscolo-skeletal system and psychological dysfunctions (53 times higher).]Among those evaluated, the number of healthy people sank from 1987 to 1996 from 59 % to 18%. Among inhabitants of the contaminated areas from 52% to 21% and among the children of affected parent from 81% to 30%. It has been reported for several years that type I diabetes (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus) has risen sharply amongst children and youth
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Benched

    43,820 Messages
    3,379 Likes Received

    anyone using that mess for anything other then useless BS is a moron. Chernobyl happened because of terrible design, construction and operation.

    Show anything NEAR to that in the US, Japan, France, England. But the strawman BS is just that. Just like Ninja's claim that there is no problem now without any of the plants.
  20. ninja

    ninja Numbnuts

    6,925 Messages
    1,665 Likes Received
    Unlike you, I'm actually in Japan. I have in-laws and friends here. My in-laws and friends experienced one blackout over the summer for two hours. That was it. They had a very hot summer and a very cold winter. All the nuke proponents had been predicting major outages over the summer and winter. Guess what? Didn't happen in reality.

    Now, I don't know about you, but one blackout for two hours hardly constitutes a problem. And now every nuke plant but one is off-line and there are NO problems right now as we speak to the best of my knowledge.

    Unlike Burm, I'm actually here experiencing and dealing in reality. Unless you are in Japan right now Burm and would like to give us all a firsthand account of these problems you are so sure exist. :rolleyes:

Share This Page