Japan & Nuclear Catastrophe?

[Marmora Man]

I do not want to underplay the problems the Japanese are facing at the Fukishama Nuclear plant. However, the media hype and what almost appears to be glee in reporting the problems seem to be missing an essential point and focussing disproportionate effort and reporting on the nuclear problems.

Jpana has experienced a major earthquake measured at 9 on the Richter scale, followed by a devastating tsunami. The total deaths have yet to be calculated but are estimated to be far in excess of 10,000 with associated infrastructure and economic damage.

To date the nuclear problems have led to no deaths, a few hours of high, but not huge, level radiation in a very localised area with radiation levels outside 12 mile the exclusion zone being barely above natural background levels. In the 60 year history of domestic nuclear power there are estimated to have been no more than 5,000 deaths directly associated (if that - it is difficult to find reliable and unbiased facts - I would think the figure is much much lower) - while over the last 60 years deaths from coal mining or the oil industry will be much higher.

Germany has, in response, even shut down all its reactors for safety checks - yet they are not in a earthquake / tsunami zone.

[KidKruger]

Marmora man I am no expert but I think Chernobyl accounted for many deaths that would contribute to top the 5000 figure you quoted, especially if you consider the consequences for descendents of those who have already died/are dying now/will get symptoms related to Chernobyl. The impact on health locally (near Kiev I think) has been massive and it'll be decades before accurate statistics can be obtained. But be certain that the stats will not report increased longevity and reduction in cancers and abnormalities !!

It's a fair point that currently that, based on death toll directly attributable to the tsunami versus nuclear problem, tsunami wins hands-down. But from a media perspective the tsunami is done and now it's a clear-up and body counting exercise. The nuclear problem is a live news item and to be seen to NOT cover it would be negligent, both in terms of standard news coverage practice (if there'd been no tsunami, should the media not report on nuclear issue ?) but also in tracking an unfolding international disaster. This is not a Japanese issue, it's a global one, it's consequences may yet impact all of us. It will not be the last either.

Consequences of this disaster and Chernobyl and the ones yet to occur last around 250,000 years each from what I understand.

What scares me is 5,000 years ago the Egyptians built pyramids and we've slowly pieced together their history to form a picture of who they were and what they did. Nuclear material can take 250,000 years to become safe® to humans and we really expect that we'll hide spent fuel rods underground or in restricted access military facilities and keep telling our descendents/successors for 250 Centuries not to go down that mine/into that warehouse.

I don't think so.

[????]

I agree Mamora...it's a huge 'story' to a degree rightly but it pulls on all sorts of irrational fears my gut feel is Nuclear will be back to normal in a few years people are 'doomesday' like irrational about this 75,000 deaths on US roads last year for instance to put it into perspective

[david_carnell]

When the Banqio dam failed in China, no one suggested that world-wide hydro-electric power was dangerous and needed to be immediately halted.

It was seen as a 1-in-2000 year flood that no amount of engineering expertise could have prevented. We try and make better plans for the future, mourn the loss of life and move on. The same is true here.

Whilst I am far from a fan of nuclear power, the hyperbolic and excessive reaction from the anti-nuclear camp in this instance is something to be ashamed of.

[KidKruger]

david carnell, the same is not true here.

the flood was not man made (unless you're saying man creates the flood every 2000 years).

floods eventually dry-up, and take a lot less than a quarter of a million years to do so.

nuclear disasters don't give us a chance to clean-up and move-on, their output perpetuates almost indefinitely, but we do get a chance to mourn the dead, and the disfigured, and the genetically flawed and sterilised, generation after generation.

i'm not anti nuclear per se but I am amazed how, given the extremely dire consequences of failures, nuclear facilities and their purported safety are given the rose-tinted treatment when it comes to considering long-term viability.

[MikeLK]

I am very sad about JAPAN disaster!

:(

[Loz]

I must say that if the 50 workers who are battling the crisis make it out alive they should celebrated around the world and bravery medals pinned on them until they can't stand up under the weight of them. I can't begin to imagine what I would do if I were in their position.

[DJKillaQueen]

Isn't the issue with the nuclear power plant one of preventing melt down? Because that is the real risk - not the problems that have been experienced so far. A complete meltdown would be another Chernobyl - that is the news story it seems - the battle to prevent that.

[Loz]

A meltdown would not be anything like the scale of another Chernobyl. The big problem with Chernobyl was the graphite fire - that carried the radiation far and wide. The Japanese reactor is of a much different design and would not affect such a wide area. In fact, if the design holds, a meltdown may not actually cause any radiation release. Unfortunately, the magnitude of the earthquake and the hydrogen explosions may may caused a breach of the some of the containment units. Only time will tell on that one.

The bigger danger seems to be the containment pools for the spent fuel rods. If the water levels in those drop the spent fuel rods will catch fire - and that will cause a radiation spread.

[zeban]

Me too MikeLK. Am not very happy with the lack of support the international community seems to be giving to Japn. They might be a rich country but they need our help and we should be rushing to give it.

[david_carnell]

What sort of help?

[zeban]

All help, especially international aid. There are massive food shortages across the country. All factories are/were in the North. Even in Tokyo there's hardly any food left and no I'm not exaggerating I have friends in Japan. What has happened is a huge international disaster, but somehow I'm not feeling that the international community aren't responding quite as generously/kindly as they usually do. Especially given the number of casaulties. And people seem more interested in looking after themselves by pulling their money out out of Japanese businesses.

There have even been some nasty comments such as one I read about about from some anti-whaling people saying somehow this is some kind of retribution or something. Appalling and utterly disgusting.

I can tell you now if we ever had a natural disaster so big and awful Japan would absolutely 100% help us out.

[Jeremy]

I don't know, I'm not sure that the international reaction is any worse than for other natural disasters.

I read an article saying that the donations so far are a lot less than for Haiti. But as you say, it's a wealthy country, so donations of money (while important) are perhaps not as appropriate as drinking water, food, blankets, search/rescue teams, medicines and medical care, fuel, etc. It's good to see China helping out Japan too, despite the fact that they don't exactly get along (to put it mildly). Also bear in mind that it takes a while to mobilise these things.

[aspidistra]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do not want to underplay the problems the

> Japanese are facing at the Fukishama Nuclear

> plant. However, the media hype and what almost

> appears to be glee in reporting the problems seem

> to be missing an essential point and focussing

> disproportionate effort and reporting on the

> nuclear problems.

>

> Jpana has experienced a major earthquake measured

> at 9 on the Richter scale, followed by a

> devastating tsunami. The total deaths have yet to

> be calculated but are estimated to be far in

> excess of 10,000 with associated infrastructure

> and economic damage.

>

> To date the nuclear problems have led to no

> deaths, a few hours of high, but not huge, level

> radiation in a very localised area with radiation

> levels outside 12 mile the exclusion zone being

> barely above natural background levels. In the 60

> year history of domestic nuclear power there are

> estimated to have been no more than 5,000 deaths

> directly associated (if that - it is difficult to

> find reliable and unbiased facts - I would think

> the figure is much much lower) - while over the

> last 60 years deaths from coal mining or the oil

> industry will be much higher.

>

> Germany has, in response, even shut down all its

> reactors for safety checks - yet they are not in a

> earthquake / tsunami zone.

MM, last month I attended a conference (RGS) where Chris Huhne spoke about his department's spending. Apparently 75% of his department's dosh goes on cleaning up after power (coal and nuclear), including compensation to individuals and their families. I've previously met 'consultants' (big four, working in government on seemingly endless contracts) who are contracted in their hundreds at least to compensate these people. A lot of the cost to society is not immediate deaths. Coal has been 'bad'; nuclear has not been 'good' though. And there are still beaches here that you cannot go near, owing to domestic nuclear contamination warnings (nothing to do with Chernobyl: Dounray). Never mind the health costs; we are paying significant sums for all this stuff (from way back) to be cleaned up. From a single UK nuclear power station that never had any 'disasters'. Who is paying for the NDA and all its works? I do think it's outrageous that only 25% of DECC budget goes on anything vaguely useful.

Sure, driver drive like idiots and kill people. I'd like to do something about them too, but it probably wouldn't be allowed. It's seemingly only when governments (or their proxies) kill that we can control/influence.

[nashoi]

I've been genuinely quite shocked at the language journalists have been using, particularly in contrast to the sober tones of the scientists often quoted on the same page. Yesterdays Indy being a good example, straightforward scientific analysis and an article finishing with talk of frankenstein machines sitting next to each other.

There was an interesting discussion about the science behind it on R4's Material World this afternoon.

[????]

News Journalists are basically, young, know nothing wordsmiths trying to get their stuff on the front page...even in the 'qualities'. Columnists can be idiots but you can read a bit mores sense there generally. Any news worthy event I've been at has normally been reported atrociously.

To be honest as Mao once said "it's too early to say"; the weeks after 9/11* the papers were full of articles on the 'end of greed' 'New Yorks values shift from greed", a paradigm in making money' all utter grabage, six years later and the place was stuffed with Gordon Gekkoes out of their tits on coke earning mega, mega, mega bucks

*see also reaction to Obama's election for a load of laughable, idealistic journalist tosh immediately after his election (good and importnat as it was for a blackman to become president of the US) for a President who to be frank has been sh!te...as a few of us cynics always suspected...better than Bush but hey

[Marmora Man]

Radio 4's Material World was an excellent and balanced programme - then followed by the PM News with Matt Frei talking of the "fears stalking Tokyo residents as the rain falling on their cheeks might be carrying radioactive death". Brilliant journalistic copy - lousy facts and an idiotic statement.

At present the radiation levels in Tokyo have not risen significantly above regular background levels. All the scientists commenting have made the point that Japan has taken the right measures - issued iodine to those within 50 miles of the problem (prevents take up of radioactive IO2 by the thyroid - which was the major cause of Chernobyl death and illness, established exclusion zones and are working sensibly to contain and control the outbreak. All three operating reactors shut down immediately in response to the earthquake, so the safety systems worked as designed despite being 30 years or more old. It was the tsunami that wrecked the power supplies to the pumps which is creating the propblem of not being able to dissipate the excess heat.

It was lack of power that has led to the problems at Fukoshimi, as the pumps lost both main, and both back up systems in the tsunami - and new power cables have been laid - the UN International Atomic Energy Authority is now saying that the situation is grave but stable. Logically, the next step will be gaining greater control of pumps and reducing the threat of further damage / escalation of the problem.

BTW - The TImes yesterday was making the point that even if the death toll rises to 25,000 (which is likely) this represents just 1 in 6,000 of the Japanese population - horrific but sustainable. Equally, the main Japanese infrastructure remains in place with goods & services available. The very real danger is not the physical dangers but the psychological damage to confidence that the nuclear scare stories are contributing to.

[Marmora Man]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david carnell, the same is not true here.

>

> the flood was not man made (unless you're saying

> man creates the flood every 2000 years).

> floods eventually dry-up, and take a lot less than

> a quarter of a million years to do so.

> nuclear disasters don't give us a chance to

> clean-up and move-on, their output perpetuates

> almost indefinitely, but we do get a chance to

> mourn the dead, and the disfigured, and the

> genetically flawed and sterilised, generation

> after generation.

>

> i'm not anti nuclear per se but I am amazed how,

> given the extremely dire consequences of failures,

> nuclear facilities and their purported safety are

> given the rose-tinted treatment when it comes to

> considering long-term viability.

KK - you're assuming some strange powers to nuclear radiation - an error that so many people make and that persists in the face of scientific fact. Post Nagasaki and Hiroshima there were not masses of mutilations and genetic modifications that have persisted down the generations. Both cities are now completely habitable and have been for over 50 years.

The Chernobyl Forum, a group of eight U.N. agencies, and the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia governments, have estimated the death toll at only a few thousand as a result of the explosion. U.N. agencies have said some 4,000 people will die in total because of radiation exposure. as Nashoi has pointed out the Radio 4 programme Material World presented a very balanced and science based article of the Japanese nuclear plant problems - their worst case scenario didn't even come within a country mile of the sci fi armageddon picture you paint.

[Huguenot]

Lol.

I'm just trying to work out how you can have problems perpetuating generation after generation if you've been sterilised?

Aside from being science fiction horror movie stuff, that kind of nuclear hysteria prevents people making sound decisions. It's simply not true or balanced.

Even where nuclear power has been weaponised, in Hiroshima only 400 deaths were attributed to the after effects of the radiation. Whilst every one of those is a tragedy, it simply doesn't compare with the cities full of 'The Walking Dead' that KK describes. Getting a CT scan will give you more radiation exposure than being a mile away from the epicentre of the bomb.

In the UK 1,000 cancer deaths a year are attributed to high natural radiation in the west of England, yet we don't see anyone cancelling their Cornish holidays. Or to put it another way, a 'nuclear catastrophe' is less dangerous to your health than going surfing.

Either way, modern nuclear power stations aren't bombs.

We need to weigh nuclear power against the other options. In this case there's only one: fossil fuels. Whilst 300 people are known to have died as a direct result of Chernobyl, this needs to be compared with the destablisation of the world caused by the unequal distribution of fossil fuels, the millions that have died in wars related to exploiting oil and coal, and the inestimable damage that will be wrought by climate change as a consequence.

[????]

Now all we need to do is find some common ground on the Euro and we could morph Huge.

To add to this - google how many miners killed on avergae per year digging coal; drilling oil/gas and the same figures for Nuclear workers, who also have lower incidences of cancer than the general population.

It's 'here be dragons' stuff..even many normally pretty rational people seem incapable of being willing to even discuss this with any rationality...it's "It's the devil"...meanwhile, slowly but surely the planet roasts.

[Brendan]

Don?t you get superheroes when you expose mild mannered scientists to enough radiation?

[????]

no. They have to be bitten by an insect or amphibian at the same time.

[katie1997]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst 300 people are known to have died as

> a direct result of Chernobyl, this needs to be

> compared with the destablisation of the world

> caused by the unequal distribution of fossil

> fuels, the millions that have died in wars related

> to exploiting oil and coal, and the inestimable

> damage that will be wrought by climate change as a

> consequence.

Please, please god, tell me you aren't a) suggesting that fossil fuels should have been distributed equally and b) that the changes in the planet's climate are only due to the exploitation of oil and coal? (and apologies if I have misinterpreted).

P.S. Brendan, have you been reading the X-Men? and why are all scientists mild-mannered?

[????]

...all those that become super heroes are

[katie1997]

aren't you confusing them with janitors?