By Mike Smith
There is no question that the events in Japan are ongoing and serious. That said, I believe a lot of people are being misled by much of the news coverage. Take a look at these headlines from the Christian Science Monitor and from Channel News Asia, respectively,
and,
“Three Mile Island” and “Chernobyl” sounds scary, right?
Let me ask a couple of questions? How many were killed by the Three Mile Island incident?
100?
10,000?
100,000?
Answer here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Claiming 56 deaths for Chernobyl is total and utter BS. The total death toll from the incident is likely in the hundreds of thousands but it is lost in the “static” of the millions of deaths occurring yearly in the fallout area.
Funny, the UN report doesn’t agree with you:
Michael R reminded me of the girl who never tried Guinness because she didn’t like it.
The BBC (surprise) did a good prog on Chernobyl a few years ago. If you exclude the deaths of those heroes who delivered boron by helicopter just above the reactor (they are all dead I think) then the deaths in the surrounding area are even lower. Wildlife is flourishing in the exclusion zone. Apparently the only available graphs of death against dosage are based on the two WW2 bombs, and exclude low dosage. Deaths attributable to low dosage are merely extrapolated down to the 0/0 origin. But the actual facts at Chernobuyl indicate that low dosages may actually reduce deaths: pepping up immunity systems was mentioned as a possibility.
Why has this post attracted comment from so many people surnamed ‘Johnson’?
A long time ago I heard that old tech was going to be used to solve a high tech problem. A tank of radiation absorbing liquid would be put some place handy. It would have drain pipes that would be plugged with something that would melt if things got way to hot, gravity would take care of the rest and humans would not be able to stop the shut down. I have not heard about this since that one time years ago.
I saw this
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html?_r=4
and had to ask:
What the hell is the military spending its money on nuclear, biological and chemical systems for if they can be exposed to this. Were they all out on deck sniffing it up or something?
Les Johnson says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:21 am
& Perry!
Have both hightlighted an excellent article. Calm, cool, calculated, unbiased, factual, & informative. Therefore nobody of any consequence will read it as it does hype up disaster, death, distruction, & the enf of the world as we know it scenarios!
Speaking as one who has worked in the broader nuclear industry, one can sit on a rock on Dartmoor & receive one’s annual doasage where the sun don’t shine in a matter of minutes, or not, depending upon how well things are working at the time in natures marvellous system! Nevertheless the media will spin this for all they’re worth. BBC Saturday morning news had a nuclear expert on to explain what had likely happened, I am surprised they had him on twice as he was so matter of fact, calm, informative, etc, he didn’t seem to want to play to their tune on sensation. Shame, (sarc)!
Ach!
The MSM seem to have a serious vendetta against nuclear power. The BBC is going on with “experts” saying if this , then that, could be, might etc. and it is all apocalyptic. Even when a guy comes on live saying that the design and the response have so far been effective and the radiation, such as it is, is at very low levels and there is every possibility that the containment will continue to be effective they are shut down very quickly.
I also note the usual conspiracists are climbing out of their dens about the “misleading” statements from the Japanese on the ground, and “cover ups” etc. It is so discouraging that the levels of trust in any part of any government can be so low.
I am not saying it isn’t a problem but I am saying that the apocalypse being predicted seems very far from actuality. I am also saying that from my perspective the Japanese government has been very open and informative in the midst of a massive natural disaster.
From today’s Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576198421680697248.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Same as with the “Love Canal Great Disaster”. The part of the underlying landfill that was toxic was not penetrated and couldn’t pollute the environment. Yellow journalism at its nastiest. Tell people that they should be sick from something or other, and they quickly sicken from something or another.
While it first sounded reasonable that the cooling system failed after (all?) Diesel-driven generators had been drowned, it is beyond comprehension that the cooling systems still fail, with more than enough time to connect external emergency power supplies.
Volt Aire says:
This must be true because, well, Volt Aire says so.
Nuke power plants are fine and dandy . . .if they weren’t rather aged in design. And except for the fact that electricity can not be stored in any significant quantity from a financial standpoint, and autos can’t, from an economically feasible standpoint run on nuke power. Plus the fact that when an earthquake of more than about 7.5 magnitude occurs closely and at shallow depth, meltdown happens.
Petroleum, coal and natutral gas (methane) look better and better, and for the sake of a food supply, more CO2 is greatly needed.
“Without being able to quantify the risk it seens sensible and logical to assume extreme danger.”
This only seems sensible or logical to someone who either believes that there will be no cost and that peoples lives will not be disrupted or who more likely believes that he will not have to pay the cost and that his life will not be disrupted.
It is also the theory behind warmism. “We can’t prove anything, so we need to take extreme measures”.
Well, it’s another doomsday scenario for the doom mongers to get their teeth into, and they’ll not let go very easily. Life is a risk. Usually the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and anything is better than stone-age living, isn’t it?
News item from China this morning.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-03/12/c_13774519.htm
They’re going to continue building reactors, while trying to learn lessons from this emergency. One interesting bit of fail-safe technology already in place:
“But the AP1000 nuclear power reactors, currently under construction in China’s coastal areas and set to be promoted in its vast hinterland, are Generation III reactors and would be exempted from such a problem, as they have a non-powered cooling system. The cooling system consists of a huge tank containing thousands of tonnes of water above the reactors, and will be activated by the force of gravity in times of emergency.”
Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Modern reactor design is by all accepted standards extremely safe. Thorium may be even more safe. Had there been a dam in this area, just think of the death toll that would have resulted had the dam been ruptured in the quake.
Nonetheless, it is clear that nuclear energy does carry with it risks on a scale which could have severe consequences such as living in the shaddow of a dam. Natural disasters or terrorist activity make nuclear and hydroectric dams vulnerable. That said, risks incidental to natural disaster can be minimised. May be it is not prudent to build nuclear reactors near to well known fault lines or in the shaddow of a volcano, or even along a coast line that could be affected by a tsunami.
Since we know and are able to identify the areas which are most prone to such natural disasters, it means that we can minimise the threats that such natural disasters impose. For some countries which are situated close to fault lines, it may not be prudent to go along the nuclear route. However, for most countries, this is not a problem. There are large areas of the US which would be completely safe. Likewise, most of Europe is safe from such risks.
It would be unfortunate if nuclear power (and the obvious benefits that it can bring) is cast aside solely because of a natural disaster which for most countries would never pose a risk. If it is, then the full consequences of the recent natural disaster in Japan will be far higher than the headline figures that will come in whithin the next few weeks and months.
My thoughts and prayers are with all those caught up in the unfortunate events in Japan.
http://www.chernobylreport.org/summary-en.pdf
Official reports leave out 2/3 of the fallout zone.
On average we kill nine people a day on British roads and maim many more. Of course we accept that, for some unknown reason. How many die on US roads everyday day?
Then think about the real pollution traffic causes and the byproducts, even more when we have to start recycling batteries from so called clean cars (more like transferred the pollution out of my neighbourhood cars).
Clearly this last sentence will return again to haunt us, in the next reboot of the Godzilla series.
Patrick Davis says:
“March 14, 2011 at 1:48 am
“Ian E says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:18 am”
True, but that does not mean quakes won’t happen in the UK. There have been many quakes in the UK in the past. Even in Australia, argualbly one of the most geologically stable lands on earth, suffers quakes. Newcastle, NSW, in 1989 for instance.”
Of course, quakes occur in the UK – at magnitudes in the region of 4! I remember feeling one in Bedford 20 years ago – it felt like someone had dropped a heavy hammer on the roof, or a sudden gust of wind. These level quakes are many orders of magnitude less powerful than any large Japanese quakes – the earthquake scale is not linear you know!
It is interesting to notice how the news media focus is on small releases of radioactivity corresponding per capita (close by) to one ordinary jet flight when perhaps 10 000 … 100 000 have died around the plants. The zunami damages to coastal towns/villages look worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings.
My view is that the nuclear power plants so far have managed very well even if there are many details that should be improved in the future. One clearly stupid, retrospectively, detail is that back up generators were destroyed by the zunami. It is perfectly possible that one or several reactors have to be written off due to the damage but so what, hardware can always be replaced. The greatest risk is probably if the earthquake leads to a situation where well working energy systems are scrapped or inferior new production capacity is built due to irrational fears.
The problem is that the anti-alarmists are every bit as ideologically confident and arrogant as the alarmists. I liked that BNC piece that is floating around but the guy claims – while admitting that he doesn’t have all the facts about these particular reactors – that you’ll only get minor radiation if you’re sitting on the chimney, but clearly more people have already been exposed to minor radiation than that, and the battle is still
ongoing.
Yes nuclear has a safer track record and produces more energy than hydro, etc, and this plant had an old design, etc. What concerns me is not that this may not be superdangerous, but that the anti-alarmists are ready to brush aside all claims of danger in their unassailable belied in anti-alarmism. It reminds me of the anti-alarmism after the oil spill. Yeah it wasn’t as bad as the greenies wanted, but it was still much worse and went on longer than anybody could have imagined or predicted, and the amount of oil flow was much higher than the government initially claimed.
The fact remains that this is the third worst nuclear plant disaster in history. Over a dozen people (?) have already been injured by these “harmless” hydrogen explosions, and we’re placing our trust in these official claims about modest radiation releases. Meanwhile, the crisis continues past the point that the non-alarmists have predicted.
Even if it’s impossible for a Chernobyl, even if nuclear is still statistically safer after this than other forms of energy, let’s not pretend that this is a walk in the park when we have no idea how long it’s going to continue or what the final casualties will be, and it’s already worse than the “worst case scenario” and the anti-alarmist’s optimism.
Yes, it is being played to the hilt.
Every single news items covering the Nuclear sites in Japan has the keywords:
Possible meltdown and fear.
Deadlines are imminent, having only hours until doom strikes.
But each successive story seems to reset the counter, and injects new fear of possible meltdown.
Man tends to be a worrying, praying animal, who invents ridiculous gods and hobgoblins to smite him if he does something to offend them and is always anxious about stuff that ‘might’ happen.
My dad, a cheerful and thinking aetheist, who fought through two world wars as an enlisted man, used to tell me
“Don’t take life too seriously, son, as you are not going to get out of it alive! Deal with the things you CAN deal with, and leave the rest alone, as worry and prayer can be fatal.”
Hugo M says:
March 14, 2011 at 2:13 am
Unless the diesel generators were smashed, they should have been able to be brought back by servicing (oil, filters, injectors & pumps) and supplied with fuel via skycrane.
Failing that, the nearest port has tugboats which can pump lots of seawater.
Hey, how’d they get that seawater pumping thing going?
I’m no expert or anything but I can’t imagine any worse circumstances for those reactors to be in than what they are now, they have taken a beating.
I’m not a fan of nukes, we’re talking about making steam to spin a turbine to spin some magnets to frighten some electrons, I can do without the really over the top complicated bit that’s supposedly just to make heat.
The cold war’s over and there’s coal in them there hills, or thorium even.