Nuclear Power: Viable energy or not after the Japanese disaster?

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]Say what you want, but it might not be long before the truth unfolds and I’ll make it my personal mission to rub it in your face. Your attitude is disgusting. We have over 35 million people in Japan and their water is now unfit for young children, indefinitely. You have family there? I don’t suppose you would recommend they hold off on having children just yet, would you?

The quake was disastrous and the tsunami was worse. But the leaking nukes is incomparably worse. It’s not going to kill more people over night but if you think about the social and economical implications, you can only begin to understand how devastating this is.[/quote]
Mate, I really don’t want to do this, but please just chill. Feel free to rub it all over my face as you see fit.

[quote]Drinking water safety
Can I drink the tap water in Japan?
* Yes, drinking tap water in Japan poses no immediate health risk.
* The standards adopted by the Japanese authorities for this emergency are precautionary. Currently, radioactive iodine is the most common detected contaminant; the standard for adults is 300 Becquerels per litre in drinking-water. In the very unlikely scenario that drinking-water was contaminated and consumed for an entire year at this level, the additional radiation exposure from this water would be equivalent to natural background radiation during one year.
* Japanese authorities are closely monitoring the situation and are issuing advice if needed against consumption of tap water, including specific recommendations for infants. Essential hydration of infants should not be compromised in an attempt to reduce exposure to radionuclide contamination.[/quote]
Relax, take a breath, and stop spewing panic. Okay? If we all turn into six toed demons tomorrow, feel free to call me whatever you like, whenever you feel the urge. Until then, b-r-e-a-t-h!

HG

[Mucha_Man]

As The International Atomic Energy Agency reports today:

Monitoring of drinking water is on-going: iodine-131 in drinking water was detected on 24 March in 12 prefectures, whereas caesium-137 was detected in 6 of the 47 prefectures. In Tochigi, a value of 110 becquerel per litre was observed, which is above the recommended value for drinking water to be consumed by infants (i.e. 100 becquerel per litre). All other measurements were far below 100 becquerel per litre. All caesium-137 concentrations measured were lower than 10 becquerel per litre, which is significantly below the limit set by Japan of 200 becquerel per litre.

Also:

Monitoring of drinking water is on-going, iodine-131 in drinking water was detected in 13 prefectures, caesium-137 was detected in 6 of the 47 prefectures. During the period of 19 to 23 March, all results remained below the limits set by the Japanese government. However, permissible levels of iodine-131 were exceeded in drinking water samples taken in the Fukushima and Ibaraki Prefectures and in Tokyo from 17 to 23 March. More positively, the iodine-131 levels in drinking water for Tokyo are now below limits for consumption for infants recommended by the Japanese authorities and restrictions have been lifted.

They continue to write that “The situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant remains very serious…Some positive trends are continuing, but there remain areas of uncertainty that are of serious concern.”

It’s pretty clear Huang you are glossing over the issue. Water was undrinkable for a period of several days. People on Fcom didn’t make that up.

[Dragonbones]

@Huang Guang Chen

If we all turn into six toed demons tomorrow, feel free to call me whatever you like, whenever you feel the urge. Until then, b-r-e-a-t-h!

HEY! Stop with the five-toed prejudice, okay? Some of us* were born with six toes and aren’t demons. :fume:

Ok, not actually me, but some of us.

[Mucha_Man]

@Dragonbones

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]If we all turn into six toed demons tomorrow, feel free to call me whatever you like, whenever you feel the urge. Until then, b-r-e-a-t-h!

HEY! Stop with the five-toed prejudice, okay? Some of us* were born with six toes and aren’t demons. :fume:

Ok, not actually me, but some of us.[/quote]

One of my ex-girlfriends in fact. Beautiful girl otherwise but yep, family gene thing and she had a sixth toe on one foot.

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

It’s pretty clear you are glossing over the issue. Water was undrinkable for a period of several days. If you missed that it’s your issue and not that of those who have posted the facts.

Then no doubt my statements on here will haunt me. Let’s see what comes up in the wash. Would a wager be deemed insensitive?

HG

[Dragonbones]

@Mucha Man

[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]If we all turn into six toed demons tomorrow, feel free to call me whatever you like, whenever you feel the urge. Until then, b-r-e-a-t-h!

HEY! Stop with the five-toed prejudice, okay? Some of us* were born with six toes and aren’t demons. :fume:

Ok, not actually me, but some of us.[/quote]

One of my ex-girlfriends in fact. Beautiful girl otherwise but yep, family gene thing and she had a sixth toe on one foot.[/quote]

That wouldn’t bother me at all. Extra nipples are quite common, too.

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

@Mucha Man

[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]If we all turn into six toed demons tomorrow, feel free to call me whatever you like, whenever you feel the urge. Until then, b-r-e-a-t-h!

HEY! Stop with the five-toed prejudice, okay? Some of us* were born with six toes and aren’t demons. :fume:

Ok, not actually me, but some of us.[/quote]

One of my ex-girlfriends in fact. Beautiful girl otherwise but yep, family gene thing and she had a sixth toe on one foot.[/quote]

I don’t want to go into any details on this. But have you noticed Indians never remove the sixth finger? It’s considered lucky, and they spray their six finger handprint on walls for luck. It is odd shaking hands with lucky six fingers, i grant you. Toes, I could deal with that. Not like you shake them, and if it;s fortunately your bent, there’s one extra to suck.

HG

[Ducked]

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]

[quote]Drinking water safety
Can I drink the tap water in Japan?
* Yes, drinking tap water in Japan poses no immediate health risk.
* The standards adopted by the Japanese authorities for this emergency are precautionary. Currently, radioactive iodine is the most common detected contaminant; the standard for adults is 300 Becquerels per litre in drinking-water. In the very unlikely scenario that drinking-water was contaminated and consumed for an entire year at this level, the additional radiation exposure from this water would be equivalent to natural background radiation during one year.
* Japanese authorities are closely monitoring the situation and are issuing advice if needed against consumption of tap water, including specific recommendations for infants. Essential hydration of infants should not be compromised in an attempt to reduce exposure to radionuclide contamination.[/quote][/quote]

I’m not clear who you are quoting here, but the relevant risk measure is predicted biological effect, not simple radiation exposure.

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

[quote=“Ducked”]
I’m not clear who you are quoting here, but the relevant risk measure is predicted biological effect, not simple radiation exposure.[/quote]
WHO. http://www.who.int/hac/crises/jpn/faqs/en/index8.html Dated 25 March - I assume that must be European time, as they are based in Geneva.

@yuli

[quote=“Charlie Jack”]This is just FYI, for anyone, but especially yuli, just in case it’s ever useful: There’s a “radionuclide particulate station” at Okinawa […] a dot labeled “JPP37.”

Thanks for the info! I’ll try to find out more about that and whether they are doing anything useful for us. [/quote]
Muthafucka!!!

[quote=“Muzha Man”]
One of my ex-girlfriends in fact. Beautiful girl otherwise but yep, family gene thing and she had a sixth toe on one foot. [/quote]
Halle Berry! (I think this was actually typical crap celeb reporting, but it was suggested she has six toes at some point).

[quote]Icon wrote:and this time in original Spanish: no brinque que el suelo esta parejo.
Even though I find that seriously sexy (as well as incomprehensible), please add an English translation in brackets/parentheses for those of us not able to understand the language. [/quote]
It did - I haven’t worked out if Icon gets a pass to the Fem forum or is restricted like the rest of the boys (no offence, in fact you could put a positive spin on this). Trans - The ground so far is level, there will be plenty of time to jump later, if there is a later. (Or rather - “Don’t jump until the ground is even.”) Wise words betraying a familiarity with disaster, methinks.

HG

[yuli]

@RobinTaiwan

Downplaying the magnitude of what happened in the Ukraine in 1986 with a condescending sigh is not only insensitive but it’s also a fantastic depiction of ignorance and stupidity.

Hm… let’s leave it at ignorance = “not knowing”: that is something we all have problems with in some way or other, but it can be changed.
OTOH, i understand your frustration, but i don’t think anybody taking part in this disucssion is stupid…

Say what you want, but it might not be long before the truth unfolds

Inspite of attempts to keep it under wraps, it is leaking out, like the stuff that is leaking from the damaged reactors…
There are still many people in Japan who prefer to believe what the government tells us, but the percentage of those who don’t, who demand information and honesty, is increasing. And, there is an obvious element of self-interest: every bit of mitigation and reconstruction will have to be paid for by… ourselves (the government has no money of its own, it is our money), so we should demand accountability.

The quake was disastrous and the tsunami was worse. But the leaking nukes is incomparably worse.

As i said in a recent post, i think we shouldn’t play off these events against each other like that - both have their own set of disastrous consequences…

Anyway, thanks for the support!

From an older post:

@RobinTaiwan

I don’t trust the news for one second.

So you don’t agree with “no news is good news”, eh? Welcome to the crowd!

[yuli]

@Ducked

Up against the Taiwanese public’s critical thinking, technical savvy, and political activism? Wouldn’t have to.

Ah, you got me there - should have thought of that. I’ll concede defeat.

[bismarck]

This should perhaps be moved to the Open Forum, but as they are usually inundated with terror, I’ll keep it here for the moment. However, please keep the post OT regarding the pros and cons of Nuclear energy vs other form s of energy. I realise the thread is a little hodge podge, but I beg your understanding in the matter as several posts were referring to other pists that have been moved to separate threads but still have relevance to this thread. So please, from here on, keep the discussion strictly regarding the topic title.

Thanks for you understanding.

[yuli]

“OPINION: Looking forward from Fukushima”
english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/82255.html
Excerpts:

Simply put, humans make mistakes. We will never design a perfectly safe nuclear power plant. We will always have incomplete information about the nature and level of threats to these power plants. Assuming otherwise demonstrates hubris, and increases the risk of being unprepared for catastrophic events.

A related issue is that events do not always conform to forecasts.

Considering those points, would it not be prudent to avoid doing things with particularly severe consequences when things go wrong?

This disaster also demonstrates that short- and long-term nuclear waste disposal is a critical issue.

You say so!

In addition, climate change research suggests that the world is likely to experience more - and more severe - weather-related events in the future. This means that existing estimates of nuclear power plant vulnerability to such events are likely to be understated.

And severe natural events also have the tendency to destabilize societies and increase the risk of conflicts (wars) - another factor that comes into play when thinking about the need to safeguard nuclear waste for much longer periods of time than all of kown human history. And while nature can be conceptionalized as a complex dynamic system containing uncountable interrelated subsystems, people like to see things in isolation and reason in a linear fashion. Coal, oil, gas, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion: dreams that are turning into nightmares.

(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

"I see your true colours, shining through . . . "

@yuli

Considering those points, would it not be prudent to avoid doing things with particularly severe consequences when things go wrong?

What, like mine and burn coal, drill for and burn oil, etc? Show me the breakdown on deaths/injuries from nukes vs the Gigawatt output and the similar figure for fossil fuels, and just perhaps I’ll be a convert. Then, and this will prove more difficult, show me the number of lives saved by access to power. Actually, don’t bother, I know the answer to that, and I’m siding with the nukes.

As Machiavellian as it may sound, I’d like to see what you think is a “reasonable breakdown” on what could be the worst case toll from the Fukushima farkup relative to the tsunami/earthquake.

In addition, climate change research suggests that the world is likely to experience more - and more severe - weather-related events in the future. This means that existing estimates of nuclear power plant vulnerability to such events are likely to be understated.

@yuli

And severe natural events also have the tendency to destabilize societies and increase the risk of conflicts (wars) - another factor that comes into play when thinking about the need to safeguard nuclear waste for much longer periods of time than all of kown human history. And while nature can be conceptionalized as a complex dynamic system containing uncountable interrelated subsystems, people like to see things in isolation and reason in a linear fashion. Coal, oil, gas, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion: dreams that are turning into nightmares.

Wow, I honestly didn’t expect you to step fully into cloud cuckoo land, but there it is. I almost feel sad a certain former poster is too busy keeping, funnily enough, real Rascals from his door to get on here and sort you out!

HG

[yuli]

@Huang Guang Chen

"I see your true colours, shining through . . . "

Wow, I honestly didn’t expect you to step fully into cloud cuckoo land, but there it is. I almost feel sad a certain former poster is too busy keeping, funnily enough, real Rascals from his door to get on here and sort you out!

You are wasting your breath, Sir…

[Charlie_Jack]

Just musing here.

Somewhere back there I posted something about the need for a change of ethical game plans if the powers that be want the thing to be more palatable to the public.

When something powerful sounds like nonsense even when thoroughly explained (and some kinds of science used to sound like nonsense even to some scientists), but is nonetheless powerful, then it resembles magic. Nuclear energy, unlike older forms and older technologies, resembles magic, the supernatural, in the eyes of many people. Now, they might not admit to that if you were to ask them about it, but something like that is going on in their heads. Nuclear physics and nuclear engineering ain’t exactly the most intuitive things in the world.

When something goes wrong with nuclear power, it resembles bad magic. Also, people feel betrayed: “You told us angels were going to intervene for us, but we see devils instead.” If the powers that be don’t like that, they’d better acquire the habit of explaining things accurately, objectively, and in detail, and they’d better tell the whole, unvarnished truth, including possible pitfalls, and not stint anywhere, even if the whole truth adds to people’s fears, and let people judge for themselves, and let the chips fall where they may.

In aid of industry ethics, I think people will need to become considerably more educated about this stuff (including me, of course), and early on in their lives when possible, so that they can bust those industry guys if they try to bulls*** about something, and so they will be at lower risk of having unfounded fears. I beg you to note that I did not say propagandized or subjected to a sales pitch.

I have no idea how you would set a nuclear power curriculum up so as to make it unbiased. One solution might be to set it up to be biased both ways, or three ways, and again, let people judge for themselves, and let the chips fall where they may. That is, some people’s views would go one way, some the other, and some would probably hover in the middle.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my one cent’s worth. :neutral:

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

Your one cent is on the money, I reckon Mr Jack. The fact that radiation kills you and you can’t see it adds to it’s bad mojo. The fact that governments have deliberately lied about it in the past obviously doesn’t help.

Add to this that people just don’t seem to get that radiation is natural, that there are effectively naturally occurring nuke reactors decaying all over the panet, that just sleeping next to a person increases your radiation load, or that radiologists blast people on a daily basis with far more concentrated and higher bursts of radiation than a month of exposure within the 20km zone in Fukushima offers to cure cancers, without killing them, and so on.

Despite the FACT that the total potential exposure from this event in Fukushima is never going to come close to the levels of one aerial burst of the type the yanks did testing nukes in the Pacific, let alone Chernobyl is completely ignored. Instead sheeple see a screen which shows, because our detection systems are so damned finely tuned, minute levels seeping around in a nice spooky mustard gas cloud like diagram and the world shits itself, turns it’s concerns inward and ignores the real story which is obviously the plight and suffering of all those many confirmed, like actually dead and those suffering from the very real and latent disaster which is the tsunami and earthquake. .

And then of course, we have the quasi-religious fruticakes that oppose nukes on some mojo magical principle adding their benighted scary voices to a global media eager to sucker in readers (buyers of ther newspapers, magazines, and their resultant ad space and value) and audiences (more ads, more value) and you get the situation we now face.

Oh, and look over there in that other thread. Now we got dear old Tommy (dog with two dicks) posting shit from the Daily farkin; Mail! (If I was the editor of The Sun or the Daily Mail, I’d be sure the next page 3 girl had three tits!)

It would be an utter joke, if it wasn’t just so damned tragic.

HG

[Charlie_Jack]

@Huang Guang Chen

Your one cent is on the money, I reckon Mr Jack.

Thanks, HG.

[yuli]

@Huang Guang Chen

Your one cent is on the money, I reckon Mr Jack. The fact that radiation kills you and you can’t see it adds to it’s bad mojo. The fact that governments have deliberately lied about it in the past obviously doesn’t help.

Exactly!

Despite the FACT that the total potential exposure from this event in Fukushima is never going to come close to the levels of

You might become credible if you would just stop making predictions about the future.
We all hope that nothing worse will happen, but most of us are smart enough to know that we are not in control - neither of the situation in Fukushima nor of the future in general…

But let me add, i enjoy your posts anyway - you can be quite funny!

[yuli]

Viable? Under what circumstances?
If we could just eliminate human nature from the equation, eh!

“Glowing endorsement”
thedaily.com/page/2011/03/24 … almia-1-2/

(Note:
Links on news websites may become unusable or closed to the general public after a while.
To ensure future access to information that is posted here, please download the linked articles to your own computer)