A non-nuclear Japan remains questionable
TOKYO —
As Japan commemorated the 66th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima this month, anti-nuclear activists took the opportunity to reinvigorate their call for the abolishment of nuclear power generation. A movement backed by a growing number of Japanese and individuals abroad, many have urged the Japanese government to look into alternative sources of renewable energy, citing the fiasco at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant as evidence of the risks associated with the use of nuclear energy in civilian applications. Even Yoko Ono has jumped in on the action.
Bearing both this and allegations of clandestine government interventionism in support of nuclear energy at town hall meetings in mind, does nuclear power generation have a place in Japan’s energy future?
Contrary to popular opinion, the answer is a clear and resounding yes.
By now, many of you must be shocked by such a firm answer. And understandably so. After excessive radiation exposure at Tsuruga in 1981; the Tokaimura nuclear accident in 1999 and the Mihama plant accident in 2004 (on top of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in World War II), Japan has experienced more than its fair share of nuclear energy-related accidents since it began its relationship with nuclear energy more than half a century ago. Why, then, must the Japanese continue to source their electricity from a potentially dangerous source?
Let’s begin by looking at figures collected by NextBigFuture.com, which compared the number of fatalities caused by the nuclear power industry in comparison to those from other energy sources (figures are in fatalities per terawatt-hour).
Despite fears of cancer and other radiation-related health risks, nuclear power generation has caused fewer fatalities per terawatt hour than all other major sources of non-renewable and renewable energy. Even hydro, which by many is considered to be a safe, clean and renewable source of electricity, caused two times the number of deaths attributed to nuclear energy. Please keep in mind that hydroelectric production accounts for less than half the amount of energy generated by nuclear power plants around the world.
What’s more, life expectancy lost due to radiation exposure is, in fact, a fraction that of life expectancy lost by those in the mining industry, and a millionth that of life expectancy lost by drinking and smoking (which a far greater number of people are acquainted with). You even stand a greater chance of losing (more of) your life working in the secondary sector than you do working at or around a nuclear power plant.
But let’s assume that you’re very concerned about the environment and the environmental impact that nuclear power generation has on ecosystems not only in Japan, but around the world. What happens if your drinking water becomes tainted by radiation? Not even the staunchest of pro-nuclear supporters would want to drink contaminated water or eat contaminated produce.
Reality, however, is far removed from fiction. Though radiation exceeding permissible levels has been detected in Japanese food exports since the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant began, one would have to eat enormous amounts of the tainted product to become sick from the radiation. A report by the CBC found that one would have to consume upwards of 184 kilograms of contaminated food simply to receive an exposure level equal to the normal background radiation received on a per annum basis. Is it really worth shutting down a major source of electricity and investing billions of dollars in potentially infeasible, alternative sources of electricity, simply to allay a comparatively minor concern during a time of economic uncertainty and a 225% debt to GDP ratio?
On top of all of this is nuclear energy’s enormous potential. Harnessed in the last century alone, electrical production of nuclear energy remains unmatched by all but the traditional, non-renewable three - coal, oil and natural gas, yet nuclear energy remains cleaner than the three. Though major progress in both technologies has been made in the last decade, electrical production from solar and wind sources remains spotty at best. The energy potential of hydrogen is lower than the amount of energy needed to extract it from water. Geothermal energy, while seemingly feasible, is impractical in a country as energy-intensive and populated as Japan. Even if Japan were to find an alternative source of energy with enough potential to replace every functional nuclear plant in the country, the burden of reconstruction and its ongoing economic malaise make it clear that Japan is in no financial position to embark on such a costly energy-infrastructure project.
The fact of the matter is this: though the Japanese public continue to be concerned about the health and environmental effects caused by the continued employment of nuclear power generation, nuclear energy will continue to supply electricity to the Japanese well into the conceivable future simply because there are no viable alternatives on financial and practical levels. True, Japan may benefit from stricter controls and a greater level of transparency on all levels; and yes, the concerns raised aren’t unwarranted, but a nuclear-powered Japan is here to stay. And that’s a reality that even the most vocal of anti-nuclear activists cannot afford - literally and metaphorically - to ignore.
Author Infomation
- Peter Dyloco
- My name is Peter Dyloco. I hope to bring a fresh perspective to the issues that face Japan. I enjoy learning new languages and study them during my spare time. I’m able to speak English, Japanese, Taiwanese Hokkien, Mandarin, Cantonese, Tagalog and French to various levels of proficiency. I was born and raised in Hong Kong.
Order by Time Order by Popularity
54 Comments
Login to comment
-1
sillygirl
is that 184 kilograms at one sitting, every day or is that 184 kilograms over a period of time and what is that timeline? it is nice to throw out those statistics but with nothing to explain them what are we to think?
2
cleo
Dunno about other folks' appetites, but wouldn't an average healthy adult get through that much food in three or four months? That would mean the annual radiation would be three or four times the background, plus the background, ie 4 or 5 times the normal background radiation. Add in water and it could be 6 or 7 times normal if not more. And what is 'normal background radiation'? Levels vary greatly according to location - the normal average in Japan is roughly half the normal average in the US, while in Hong Kong normal levels are on a par with the elevated levels seen SW of the Fukushima Daiichi 30km exclusion zone in late March.
When you're talking about feeding contaminated food to my infant granddaughter, the answer is Yes Of Course It Is, What A No-Brainer. Comparatively minor concern my bloodshot left eyeball.
And that before we even start to think of the economics of the problem; at present the cost of storing nuclear waste in 'safe' storage for the next 10,000 plus years is blithely being left for our grandchildren's grandchildren to worry about. If that cost were factored into the electricity bills of the people actually using it, as it should be, the cost would be astronomical. All this talk of nuclear being clean, safe, efficient and economical is bunkum.
3
Reinaert Albrecht
This kind of research dismisses out of hand the recent findings that Chernobyl caused about 500.000-1.000.000 deaths (read the yablokov report) and that radioactive material has to be taken care of for over 20.000 years. It's quite convenient not to mention this time and again and falsifies any statement that doesn't mention these facts.
2
saru_au
This kind of research means nothing to the people of Fukishima and surrounding areas.
2
SquidBert
Please note that he is talking about Japanese food exported to US here. This is for sure not the highly contaminated stuff that they will try to dump on cheap markets. Also no level of radioactivity is mentioned (Bq/Kg please), any mention of how many kilograms are safe is worthless if this information is not available.
I would also like to see some sources that helped him form his opinions about the insufficiency of alternative energy sources.
0
Foxie
>
And that before we even start to think of the economics of the problem; at present the cost of storing nuclear waste in 'safe' storage for the next 10,000 plus years is blithely being left for our grandchildren's grandchildren to worry about. If that cost were factored into the electricity bills of the people actually using it, as it should be, the cost would be astronomical. All this talk of nuclear being clean, safe, efficient and economical is bunkum.
cleo, they are building this facility right now somewhere in the north of Hokkaido in a forgotten town that got millions. It is supposed to store nuclear waste for 100,000 years at a depth of 100m and is currently being tested.
1
cleo
Giving the Facebook url as one's 'website' doesn't really help if it's open only to friends.
Another point the pro-nuclear school fails to grasp is that it's not all about the number of fatalities. It's about disrupted lives, the potential of later cancers and deformed babies, the fear of the unseen unknown; a hydroelectric dam might disrupt lives when villages are submerged under the dam lake, but that's a visible, understandable kind of disruption; the dam stops the water, the water backs up into a lake, if you're not wet, you know you're safe. It's easy to understand. The same can't be said of nuclear, which is invisible, tasteless, odourless; you don't know whether or how badly you've been affected until it's too late to do anything about it, and the effects are long-lasting and irreversible.
3
cleo
The cost of building and testing the facility might be included in the electricity bills of the people actually using the electricity, but I'm pretty sure they will not be paying for management, maintenance and repair costs to cover the whole 100,000 years. It's like shopping with the credit card of someone who hasn't been born yet.
And when they produce the scientist who will guarantee that seismic conditions will not change over 100,000 years and the facility will be safe for all that time, I will poke him in the eye and call him a liar and a charlatan, because there is no guarantee that any given location will remain geologically unchanged over that kind of time span. Faults develop, water tables fluctuate.
0
SquidBert
It is also very convenient for them that a huge amount of cancer cases can occur and still be hidden within the margin of statistical errors.
Whereas if just ten people drowned due to a broken dam, there is no hiding that fact. And it will be all over the news. Sure Fukushima is all over the news now, But I'll bet ya that when the cancer cases start occurring it wont be as big.
0
Foxie
cleo, exactly. And why does it have to be in our beautiful, clean Hokkaido? They should have built it in Fukushima.
0
GW
While I to realize nuclear power is here to stay for a while at least the biggest problem in Japan is twofold, 1. the large amount of natural disasters in Jpn & 2. gross utter incompetence of govt & business.
Those two make for a deadly combination set to repeat itself MANY times over the years to come that is why Japan needs to phase out its nukes, Japan simply isnt able to manage them PERIOD!
And Peter neither you nor I are experts, we are only stating our opinions, thoughts nothing more
0
SquidBert
Well if Hokkaido doesn't pan out, they also have plans for dumping the crap in Mongolia That's nice, find a poor country, and give them an offer they wont be able to refuse. And then it will be the problem of future generations of some other country. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-energy-nuclear-mongolia-idUSTRE74805020110509
1
Star-viking
And this report is highly contentious - as the research was not undertaken personally by the writers. They relied on anecdotes, failed to account for other causes of death (look to the Aral Sea to see how polluted and toxic areas of the former Soviet Union are).
The more professional WHO report on Chernobyl gave the death toll as 4,000.
-2
Star-viking
Cleo
The fear of the unseen unknown sound pretty irrational to me.
Easy to understand - we can see and touch it. However, in an earthquake situation, given the choice between living down stream of a hydro dam and near a nuclear plant I'd plonk for the latter - the unseen unknown does not immediately pulverise me and mine with gigatons of water.
The research carried out on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors shows that well over 90% of fatalities occurred because of unfounded fears of unseen unknowns. As for being invisible, tasteless and odourless - that's what geiger counters are for.
-1
Star-viking
Cleo
It should be about numbers of fatalities - Nuclear power has a very low fatality level for power produced. Fossil fuel plants are much higher due to the carcinogenic compounds they release into the atmosphere, in addition to greenhouse gasses.
1
SquidBert
That is still a lot more than the no one ( or "handful" of people) that the pro nuclear usually likes to talk about.
0
Star-viking
Are you a geologist Cleo? If not then that's just your layperson's opinion. If you are - please give some references to back up your statement.
Long term storage facilities might not be needed anyway - 4th Generation Reactor designs include one, the IFR, which 'burns' nuclear waste.
1
SquidBert
From the article:
This is of course a well functioning power plant under normal operations. In which case there should be absolutely no contamination. I hope the author does not seriously think this applies to Fukushima.
2
cwhite
Just love reading these comments, it's always switch the story for another without focusing on the issue at hand. People like to talk about the problems with other fuel sources and pollutants along with food products with preservatives, additives and other fertilizer poison. Problem is all these things you can actually do something about. You can wear a gas mask to school with protective UV gear, drink filtered water and grow you own vegetables. But, when it comes to radiation your screwed. There is no destroying it, the best you can do is contain it and move it left to right and hope for the best. With so many uncertainties and all the screw ups in just the last 25 years to do with nuclear power I would not trust anyone who says nuclear power is safe. We know it isn't and not just because of the corrupt government and very bad planning, but because there is no back up plan in existence for when the worst happens. It just a keep your fingers crossed and hope some nutcase doesn't drive a car-bomb into the facility. At least if it was a gas, hydro, oil or coal facility the outcome is calculable and much more local. Even with oil I doubt it would spread around the world in a few days.
We now know that Japan indeed does not need nuclear power to the dismay of Tepco who were hoping for major electricity blackouts. It has been proven that with a little ingenuity companies can offset the electricity load but shifting work hours, something they should have been doing years ago. If shops, restaurants, taxi drivers, policemen and all the other services that run 24 hours 365 days a year can use rotating shifts then manufacturers will also benefit from working through the cool hours with no rush hour for workers. That said next year companies that saved million or billions of yen will not want to revert back to the old style and will want to save money on the energy bill regardless of enough surplus to go round during the day.
-1
SquidBert
@Star-Viking
And these IFR reactors, what would you say would happen to them if they sprung a leak during an earthquake and was flooded with water? I am not a nuclear physicist or engineer. But it is my best guess, that it would make the hydrogen explosion at Fukushima seem like a comfortable breeze.
Ah? I can already hear your answer, they are new and shiny and will not spring leaks. The probability is very low, only once in 10000 years, why are you so scared?
0
Star-viking
@SquidBert - why should an IFR flood with water? They don't need water in their cores like most current types of reactor.
What is your basis for your guess? It doesn't sound well-informed, by your own admission.
Well, as I pointed out - not much chance for leaks. They also are designed to fail-safe if power is lost, so no - I am not scared about 4th Generation nuclear reactors, or any other generation ones. I'm more concerned about the toxins and green house gasses emitted by our fossil fuel plants.
2
cleo
Viruses are also unseen, but it would be pretty irrational to walk unprotected into a village where (eg) ebola was on the rampage.
You can choose not to live downstream of the dam. But it's impossible to live in a place unaffected by a potential nuclear hazard - get far enough away from one plant, and you're within range of the next. Even people across the water in America have been twitching with unease wondering how much of the mess is going to come their way. And while the radiation may not 'immediately pulverise' you, it will sit around for decades silent and unseen, contaminating the food, the water, the soil and anything grown on it, threatening to plant deformities in your babies' babies.
Research on survivors tell us about the fatalities? Come again? The majority of fatalities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred from the initial intense burst of radiation, vaporisation, heat, fire and concussion. Not really relevant or comparable to a npp.
I may not be a geologist, but who are you to say what people should be concerned about?
They're already needed for the tons of waste that have already been produced.
0
SquidBert
@Star-viking
Sorry I should have mentioned, the flooding water comes from the 15 meter tsunami. Or the ERT trying to cool things down with water, whatever.
Last time I checked sodium reacts rather violently with water, especially super heated sodium.
If you are saying that you don't see any problems with water in a liquid metal cooled reactor, there is no reason to continue the discussion.
Well, I'll give you this one, but them same was said for older type reactors as well. Designed to fail-safe basically just mean designed to fail safe in situations predicted during its design.
1
SquidBert
We have one of those soidium cooled thingies in Monju. It does not have a great track record as you might know.
3
JeffLee
Nuclear weapons have also killed far, far fewer people than conventional weapons have. That doesn't make them safer.
0
SquidBert
@JeffLee
Thank you, for one of the most illustrative explanations heard in this debate
2
Johannes Weber
Anyone praising the so-called nuclear safety should include the mining of nuclear fuel, which happens mostly in Kazachstan, Canada and Australia. The conditions there and the environmental pollution in these areas, high cancer rates and whatsoever should be included (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uraniumminingdebate). However, there are no really reliable numbers about these fatalities, because the responsible companies don't want to know the numbers. It would be expensive to make things safer...
Only because the average amount of radiation emitted by a power plant is low indeed - no one can say anything against that - at particular times, e.g. during the exchange of fuel element the local radiation increases quite a bit. Even with the safest power plant in the world, You have noteworthy increases in certain diseases or cancer types, which are still below the limit of statistical significance. You need quite large numbers of identified cases to prove a relation between nuclear plants and disease. But even below the limit of statistical significance, an increase by a factor of two or three in bone cancer cases at multiple places near power plants is quite hard to ignore. Except of course, that You want to ignore it.
0
Star-viking
@SquidBert
I guess that depends on what pro-nuclear people we're talking about. Most pro-people I know quote the figure, though the benchmark is the 2007 paper "Electricity generation and health" from The Lancet which incorporates the Chernobyl figures.
And Chernobyl was built to an awful design too (no containment dome!).
0
Star-viking
@Cleo
That is true - but it would also be irrational to walk unprotected in the Fukushima exclusion zone, or let fear of viruses leave you a prisoner in your own home.
Now to me that is irrational. America is not going to see any great amount of radioisotopes, and those released by the disaster have only raised the background radiation levels by a small amount outside of Fukushima. The radioisotopes will decay to harmless levels over time, and areas of high concentration will be closed off and decontaminated (hopefully, this is Japan after all). The way you write you'd think we have massive radioisotope contamination all over Japan.
And as for our babies' babies - what other alternative do we have? Wind and Solar power plants that would need to cover a massive percentage of Japan - and so expensive that mass poverty is assured? Geothermal - hard to develop and uncertain in output. We're probably going to keep on burning fossil fuels until we can't get anymore - so our babies will have to live with rising seas, rising temperatures, famine, war, and the toxins released by burning fossil fuels.
Sorry - I was unclear I should have said "fatalities amongst the survivors" - i.e. those exposed to radiation and radioisotopes. The data from these people form the core of the study of nuclear radiation, radioisotopes and health.
Well, speaking as a human being, I find it disturbing that you think that people's fears of nuclear power should be given more weight than the actual fatalities associated with nuclear power. If people's fears lead to switches to other forms of electricity production that cause more deaths - and they don't care about that fact, then they're pretty poor human beings.
The IFR can burn that waste.
1
Star-viking
@SquidBert
Well any post-Fukushima design is going to be designed with tsunamis in mind.
First, the area where the sodium is found is filled with Argon - an inert gas. Second - I'm sure the design mitigates against water entering the sodium area.
That's true - but we've reached the stage that all the likely hazardous situations have been considered and incorporated into the new designs.
1
Star-viking
@JeffLee
Well with nuclear weapons it's all about the potential for instant armageddon - not what damage they've done so far. Your statement seems bit of a false equivalency to me.
0
Reinaert Albrecht
@Star-viking
Have you read the Yablokov-report or are you just "trusting" what others are saying? If not, I suggest you read it. Citing your sources for research and combining it is standard practice in science BTW. They hardly rely on anecdotes.
0
Star-viking
@Johannes Weber
I think the health authorities in Canada and Australia would have something to say about that...
"Below statistical significance" means the increases are not noteworthy. On the subject of cancer around power plants you might want to check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13374325 which deals with how the random nature of life causes clustering of diseases.
1
cleo
Meanwhile experts still don't agree on how far the exclusion zone should extend. Mr Joe Average has no idea because he cannot see the danger and has to rely on what the so-called experts and the government tell him - not a situation that inspires confidence. In the immediate aftermath of Daiichi, people were evacuating to places that turned out to have higher radiation levels than the places they were evacuating from, because they had no idea where the danger was. Common sense told them that farther away was better, but that wasn't necessarily so.
We know that now, but not at the start of the crisis when everything was chaos. It's turned out, so far, and not withstanding the disruption to the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, that we were lucky; it hasn't been as bad as it could have been. Touch wood.
Water not fit for children to drink hundreds of miles from Fukushima, milk not fit to drink, tea not fit to drink, leafy veggies not fit to eat, beef not fit to eat but put on the market anyway, radioactive sludge building up at water treatment plants all over the place, children unable to play outside because of the contamination.....We do have massive contamination, maybe not all over Japan, but over a pretty wide area.
Nuclear is massively expensive if you figure in the amount spent on subsidies and sweeteners for the communities that host them, and the cost of storing the waste, which we are simply putting on credit for our kids to pay. if the money spent on promoting nuclear were invested instead in alternative energy and the promotion of a low-energy-cosumption lifestyle, alternatives would not be 'so expensive'. And even if they were, I'd rather my grandchildren and great-grandchildren were poor but physically sound and healthy, instead of living energy-rich but with two heads and incapacitated by leukaemia. At least in your world there'd be plenty of energy to run all the extra medical equipment that will be needed.
I find it disturbing that you think the people who are paying for the energy both in their electricity bills and through their taxes should just shut up and be thankful they aren't dead. It isn't all about fatalities. How can you say 'other forms of energy cause more deaths' is a fact, when those other forms of energy are yet to be developed? Suggesting that the only alternatives are either too expensive or too dangerous/dirty is dismissive fear-mongering; we don't know until we try, and so far we haven't tried.
0
Reinaert Albrecht
@star-viking:
Nuclear reactors burn nothing at all. They transform elements in other elements and in the process releasing energy. Burning is a chemical reaction. Nuclear energy involves nuclear reactions.
3
bam_boo
In the wake of a very real nuclear disaster that is effecting hundreds of thousands of people the article appears highly cynical. Or to be more explicit, I feel it is a slap in the face of the victims of Fukushima.
In a situation where tens of thousands of people had to leave their homes and have no idea when, or even if, they can go back, in a situation where hundreds of thousands of parents worry for their children's health, desperately searching for reliable information on the long-term health effects of radioactivity on small children, we don't need a lecture on the safety of nuclear energy of a self-appointed expert with no comprehensible expertise.
As far as I can see the article is not based on any original research nor on any specific knowledge and the only sources cited are not scientific. The only point that is perfectly clear is the belief of the author.
I would suggest to the author to talk to the victims of this disaster and get a first hand account of what it means to live in the vicinity of a 'super safe' nuclear power plant. I wonder if he would still put this in a rational perspective with coal mining casualties in central china and the dangers of installing solar panels on rooftops.
0
JeffLee
@Star-viking
Your statement seems bit of a false equivalency to me.
Nope. In both cases the operative issue is their "potential" for danger. Pro nukers on both issues focus only on the past track record, downplaying or dismissing possible future scenarios for death and destruction.
0
SquidBert
@ Star-Viking
"Below statistical significance" means not noteworthy to scientists and politicians. To the person that got cancer and his/her family, I'll bet you that it was noteworthy.
0
SquidBert
Yet somehow, the managed to create them self a nice little sodium 'splosion in Monju, didn't they?
Humans will always underestimate what Mother Nature might trow at her. I agree that the basic design is in many ways safer than todays designs. But also has not had the same test of times. I think the biggest mistake we can make, if we are going to go forward with nuclear technology at all, is believing that anything is safe. Human Hubris is what got us in this mess in the first place.
1
Johannes Weber
@ Star-Viking:
If You know a little about statistics (if not, wikipedia can explain a lot), cancer cases are dealt with Poisson statistics. That means that the statistical error is the sqare root of the total sample. If I have a million of potential cancer candidates, the statistical error is 1000, before I can prove anything. If below these 1000 cases there is an observed increase from say 10 to 500, it is statistically insignificant, but obviously visible and noteworthy.
I said that such effects are visible around many power plants, but that they can't be proved due to being below the statistic errors. And yes, nuclear power plants emit increased radiation at certain situations. They are not completely clean. It is a matter of personal choice, whether one thinks the health risk is small enough or not.
0
Star-viking
@Reinaert Albrecht
I'm going by the reviews in the Journals Radiation Protection Dosimetry and Environmental Health Perspectives
I was using 'burn' colloquially.
0
Star-viking
@Cleo
I wouldn't say experts still don't agree - bureaucrats might be a better substitute word there, and I agree that that situation with the evacuations was terrible. However, the fact was that the problem was caused by one Ministry ignoring information from another Ministry - the SPEEDI data, data which showed the likely areas of contamination. We can see similar ineptitude in the fact that the Farm Ministry didn't know cows could be fed rice straw as well as the hay they banned. Also, in the case of the rice straw we have the fact that no-one on the non-government side - JA, farmers said anything querying the use of rice straw. Oh, and the politicians were jockeying for power instead of performing any kind of oversight. This disaster should be focusing eyes on the government, bureaucracy, and society's response to this disaster.
It was more due to some fool putting out a made-up radiation map on the internet that that panic started. Basic science means that the radioisotopes would be spread out and diluted in the atmosphere on their long trip across the Pacific.
It's not massive contamination in the main, as the dosages are just over the cumulative safety limit, i.e. you don't want to be eating the contaminated foodstuffs day-in and day-out. These things decrease with time too - water and milk were safe for babies to drink within days.
0
Star-viking
Nuclear is not massively expensive if you do the maths on the subsidies and sweetners - if you do the maths they add 1.5 yen per Kilowatt Hour. In figures given in the Anti-nuclear Japan Times that makes Nuclear 6.5-7.7 yen per KWhr, Wind 9-14 yen, and Solar 49 yen! Wind and solar would also occupy significant percentages of Japan to provide replacement power for nuclear (not including the need for energy storage). For area you're talking about 50% of the non-mountainous area of Japan. As for waste storage - that's more of a societal issue than a cost issue. Waste can either be 'burned' in 4th Generation reactors, or vitrified and stored in areas that are very likely to be stable over hundreds of thousands of years.
As for having money invested in developing alternative energy and a low energy consumption lifestyle - well that would be great if some amazing break through occured in either price or technology - but if it didn't you've got nowhere, with expensive, unreliable power, and will probably have to keep on burning fossil fuels to make up the difference.
Poor by physically sound and healthy? Do you know what being poor means? Being malnourished, ill educated, physically and mentally abused are likely what life will hold for your descendants if we rush will-nilly down a no-nukes route. If global warming gets very bad you mightn't have to worry about your grandchildrens' future at all. As for 'two-heads' that's just bad sci-fi, and leukemia is very unlikely, in my opinion.
0
Star-viking
Cleo, here's my actual quote
So yes, I don't think it's all about fatalities - but they deserve to have the highest consideration, despite how much cash you pay.
Actually I can say that because the reports I referenced (Starfelt and Wikdahl; Markandya and Wilkinson) cover most, forms of power generation - including the alternatives, some of which have been developed over decades, so we can say things pretty conclusively about them. The only filed missing is wave generation, as this is in its infancy. I'll give you the list, and if you think one other developing field of power generation has been missed you let me know:
Coal; Lignite; Peat; Oil; Gas; Nuclear; Biomass; Hydro; Wind.
And, as an aside - If I'm dismissive it's because I've looked at the research and formed my own conclusions, not through fear-mongering.
0
Star-viking
Well I think rationality would indicate not being swayed by emotional matters and looking at things critically. Things like the fact that Fukushima Daiichi failed due to being hit by a massive, unexpected, once-in-a-thousand years tsunami.
0
Star-viking
@Jeff Lee
Potential is not enough, probability has to come into any risk assessment. Chernobyl was caused by poor design and procedures, Three Mile Island by mechanical failures and poor procedures, Fukushima by an unprecedented tsunami. These are lessons to be learned, and incorporated into the next generaion of power plants - making them safer. Nuclear weapons are dangerous by design, and developments seek to make them more dangerous for less bucks. Not equivalent in my mind.
The most hazardous thing facing humanity at present is global warming - with a very high probability. Trying to replace nuclear plants with county-covering arrays of solar panels and wind turbines does nothing at all to lessen this hazard.
0
Star-viking
@SquidBert
I'm not talking about Monju, I am, and have been, talking about the IFR. However, talking about Monju, it was a fire - not an explosion.
I agree with you - we must keep things continually appraised and research up-to-date, whilst 100% safety can never be achieved in any enterprise - we have to strive to get as close to 100% as we can.
0
Star-viking
@SquidBert
Cancer got my dad, and almost got my mum - believe you me, I am not flippant about cancer. I was referring to Johannes Weber's use of the word to indicate that there was a definite causal link between the cancers and nuclear power. Take a look at the link I posted - it's really very good.
0
cleo
Or you could say the problem was that the danger is invisible; people can run away from, say, flooding or a landslide, but you can't see the radiation. You don't need to wait for (possibly inaccurate) information from one Ministry to reach another Ministry to get out of the way of a danger you can see.
But you don't know, just by looking at the food or smelling it, whether it's contaminated or not. Which means that everything becomes suspect.
Again, you cannot tell by looking at or even by tasting the water and milk, whether or not it's OK. We have to rely on those who were jockeying for power instead of performing any kind of oversight - and all they say is that it poses no immediate health threat. Suffice it to say that my granddaughter will not be drinking Japanese tapwater for the foreseeable future.
It's a cost issue as well as a health issue. If something that has been used for ten years them needs to be stored safely for 100,000 years, you're going to need some kind of monitoring system for all that time; you can't just shove it all in a hole in a mountain and forget about it. The salary of just one employee earning a modest 5 million yen a year for 100,000 years, factored into the 10-year period the fuel is actually producing energy, works out at 50,000 million yen a year - for one worker. How many workers at how many sites would actually be needed to monitor/maintain/repair the facilities needed to store an ever-growing pile of nuclear waste? Note that for the proposed Yukka Mountain storage facility in America talk is of storing waste for up to 1 million years - how many man-hours is that when squeezed into those ten years of energy generation?
Don't try to insult me.
And yours is a professional, medical opinion?
I think I can assure you that parents wondering whether the food their kids are eating is safe, whether the air their kids are breathing is safe, whether the water their kids are drinking is safe, whether the dirt their kids are walking on is safe, are looking at things very critically. And their emotions are very rational.
-1
j4p4nFTW
That's why we have Geiger counters. derp
0
cleo
derp??
The people trying to evacuate on the 11th and 12th of March were in many cases lucky if they had the clothes they stood up in, never mind their own personal geiger counters.
1
saru_au
j4p4nFTWAug. 29, 2011 - 01:45PM JST Nuclear power is the safe, clean, cheap and environmentally friendly energy choice for the future. Posted in: Quake-prone Japan looks at geothermal energy
who is the derp ?
-1
Star-viking
Same with food poisoning. Sooner or later you have to trust the experts on things 'invisible'.
The whole thing about storing the waste in geologically stable areas is that manpower will not be needed in the long run.
So you do, and still prefer your grandchildren face the certain full force of climate change rather than a chance of a small percentage increase in cancer rates - a malady we are getting more adept at fighting?
Professional physics opinion - having read the relevant medical papers.
Cleo, emotions are rarely rational, and looking at things critically means engaging the intellect, studying matters at hand and taking in expert opinion - not fearing things invisible.
0
cleo
Oh come on. Half a country covered in varying degrees of contamination, politicians suggesting that the radiation be spread still further so everybody gets a share, suddenly everything is labelled 'kokusan' so you can't tell where it comes from - and you say 'trust the experts'?
Not true. Even leaving aside the mind-bending problem of where you're going to find a geologically stable area in Japan, the storage facilities still need to be monitored. It's meaningless to set radiation standards - individual dose standards, human intrusion (security) standards and groundwater protection standards are the ones set for Yucca Mountain - if you aren't going to monitor them to see that they're being adhered to. That means human working hours. Added to that the amount of nuclear waste would be growing all the time, so you would need to have people opening the place up to dump more stuff inside on a regular basis.
As I said before, if the money poured into promoting nuclear and bribing people to accept it (not to mention the money spent on storing the stuff, Oh I forget we haven't spent that yet, we're leaving the tab for the kids to pick up) were spent on developing alternative energy, there would be no need for either nuclear or fossil-fuel energy. 'If we don't have nuclear the only alternative is uncontrollable global warming' is the scaremongering cry of those with a vested interest in promoting nuclear.
Fine. This is Earth, not Vulcan. We are an emotional animal. But not fearing, or at least being wary of, radiation is highly irrational to the point of being crazy.
Back to top