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.
Is there any substance to the reports that Russia, and Japan to a lesser extent, have histories of being less than forthcoming with nuclear incident information?
On Chernobyl, I can’t quite wrap my head around so many of my fellow skeptics speaking in support of the 56 deaths number. I’m inclined to believe that fifty-six sounds about as likely as 125,000. Both of those numbers come from notorious spin doctoring machinary. Why would we be so quick to embrace the Russian estimates and dismiss the Ukraine’s estimates so overwhelmingly?
Looked like the second explosion lifted the outside building straight up rather than blowing out the side, which is why the plume was vertical. Toward the end of the video, you can see the building slide off the plume and fall down to the front left as you view it. Think of a firecracker under a coffee can. Wouldn’t surprise me if the quake weakened the connection between the building and its foundation. Cheers –
Bravenewclimate article rebuttal passed on to me (don’t shoot the messenger!)
*
a quick search reveals a Dr. Josef Oehmen at MIT — but he’s a specialist in supply chain risk management, not nuclear reactors.
He’s citing all sorts of facts about what’s going on inside the reactors that just haven’t been revealed by the govt. For someone who’s neither a journalist nor a member of Japan’s nuclear industry, he either has an amazing inside source providing info absolutely no one else has, or he’s making it up. Josef Oehmen studied Mechanical Engineering at the Technical University Munich, ETH Zurich and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While working in industry, he obtained an MBA degree. He is currently a PhD student at the ETH Zurich Centre for Enterprise Sciences (BWI). His major research interests lie in the internationalisation of the value chains of mid-sized Swiss companies, especially the related supply chain risk management. Josef is a reviewer for several international journals and member of the supervisory board of a start-up in the field of climate protection. I dunno how any of the above qualifies him to comment in great detail on nuclear power plants.
*
These are the sources “Dr. Oehmen” recommends to get better informed:
– http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/: This site belongs to the “World Nuclear Association (WNA)”. So, what does Wikipedia tells us about it? “The World Nuclear Association…… (WNA), formerly the Uranium Institute, is an international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the many companies that comprise the global nuclear industry.”
So, basically, a lobbying enterprise. And we are to expect *serious*, *unbiased* information about power plants and their safety from such an organisation?
– http://ansnuclearcafe.org/: This website belongs to American Nuclear Society (ANS), another lobbying organisation. Let’s cite Wikipedia again: “Its main objective is to promote the advancement of science and engineering relating to the atomic nucleus.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Nuclear_Society]
@Volt Aire says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:14 am
“Claiming 56 deaths for Chernobyl is total and utter BS.”
—————————————————————-
Chernobyl fallout not as bad as first feared
ONLY 56 people have so far died directly as a result of the explosion at Chernobyl in 1986, including 9 children with thyroid cancer. In the end, perhaps up to 4,000 people will die from radiation-caused illness.
Those figures are much lower than many would guess, if they were asked. After the accident, some predicted that tens of thousands would die. But the new United Nations report this week, discussed at a Vienna conference ending today, blows what you might call a breath of fresh air on to nearly two decades of fears about the world’s worst nuclear accident.
For those prepared to hear reassurance about the risks of nuclear power, this report offers plenty. Its most sober warning is about the threat to health from the mere fact of living within the former Soviet Union. For that misfortune, it offers no comfort at all. It is compiled from the work of 100 scientists on behalf of the Chernobyl Forum: a collaboration of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog, the World Health Organisation, six other UN agencies, and the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563521.ece
If this hasn’t been stated yet:
The plants in Japan survived the earthquake which was orders of magnitude stronger than their design spec. The tsunami which was NOT foreseen in the design spec, swamped the cooling systems, making it very difficult to implement a graceful (3-day or so) cooling off period for plant shutdown. Think about that – the plants survived one of the largest quakes in recorded history. The postponement of nuclear plant construction and deployment will kill and harm far more people than all of the nuclear power plant accidents to date. By many orders of magnitude. The sky is not falling.
If you read the pre-cautionary principle and apply it correctly, it forbids its own usage!
Strange but true…a principle that in essence is a waste of space.
Nuclear power, weapons and energy is always going to be fraught with fear because normal people have no understanding of radiation. The general public is under this impression that radiation is all bad mkay. We receive fairly high dosages from our doctors of all people…and this is more then likely about the amount that most radiation events revolve around. Dosages that are safe, but perhaps not good for you on a long-term basis or over and over again.
But to talk more about the so-called principle:
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
March 14, 2011 at 4:44 am
AndyW35, that was my point back at the start of the comments. It is the ‘potential’ that nuclear power holds for disaster. Unfortunately, at least two commentators took exception to my comment and somehow confused the Precautionary Principle with it – which I never even mentioned! Still, as someone used to arguing points on forums, I well used to someone reading something in my arguments that I never wrote!
The reason people are discussing the precautionary principle is because you are attempting to apply it to this situation. You did not mention it, but what you discussed was the precautionary principle.
The best we can do as a species is survive. Radiation is natural and if you read the banana thread on this webpage (I actually learned a lot despite thinking that I knew quite a bit about radiation.) You would learn that there are various levels of “background radiation” across the planet. None of the radiation levels except within earshot of the nuclear plant will go over natural levels elsewhere on the planet. Some notable cases include mountains of Colorado where they used to mine uranium. That uranium has a half-life of billions of years and will continue to give off radiation long after humanity has gone extinct.
The notable question of “what could go wrong” means nothing. In reality the only thing that matters is what actually happened and what happens.
We should use these disasters to learn and to install better methods such as the generation 3 reactors which do not share this issue. Thorium also is a very good bet.
There are options and there is no such thing as “10000 years of life-lessness”. That is just superstitious mumbo-jumbo put out by environmentalists. Indeed, we could clean up any nuclear disaster that we wanted to, its simply a question of whether we want to or not. L
There might still be areas in and around Chernobyl that are uninhabitable, but that has nothing to do with radiation, but more with a lack of cleaning up of a disaster area completely. Three mile island is not even worth mentioning, as the worst case scenario for a BWL reactor happened and although it was terrible and cost the reactor which is expensive, no one died from the event.
We could say that perhaps some people will die from this event or that maybe perhaps someone died from Three Mile Island, but what makes these cases so interesting is that you can not tell if a death event happened from radiation exposure X (TMI) or from the local dentist’s office. There is absolutely no way to tell the difference and speculating that perhaps someone died is pure hubris. Something like that is impossible to disprove and as such is a hallmark of junk science such as AGW about making a theory that is impossible to disprove.
I would think we can all appreciate that junk science is going to stick around, but I do hope we as a species learn that applying the precautionary principle is a waste of time.
On another subject, I hope the media realizes what they are doing. Its the death of the green movement writ large. Not sure if that is what they intend, but by banning nuclear power that movement is destined to fail with nothing to fall-back on that actually works well.
Sandy says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:12 am
Same old caveats, It is estimated that there may ultimately be a total of 4,000 deaths attributable to the accident, due to increased cancer risk”
Ah, it’s good to be wrong. Better to admit it.
Though, in fairness, that low number is a Soviet number, who would have lots of interest in fudging the numbers. Would be better to talk to the Ukrainians.
The number of deaths and injuries from three mile island is in fact known. It is exactly zero. someone might have died in an accident fleeing the area or I suppose many years from now someone could tunnel into the reactor vessel and smack his head on something. The statements like no one knows how many will eventually die from it are really silly.
I don’t care who said that Chernobyl could have rendered Europe uninhabitable, whoever said it didn’t have a clue. There is simply not enough radiation there, and there never was, to do such a thing. Far more people were killed by the fear of the accident than the actual accident even at Chernobyl. Tiny radiation doses are generally harmless which is a darn good thing because virtually everyone recieves several hundred mrem per year.
Alexander my question on your argument is why? When and how the dose is delivered is what is important. The source of the dose is not. You are not safer or less safe because the dose comes from fallout or background nor because it is from fission or fusion or activated nuclei.
I guess I am saying your statement for any practical health reasons is totally incorrect.
Michael R says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:43 am
I just had the most absurd comment directed at me in relation to this crisis. Essentially it went:
Other Person “Has the nuclear reactor blown yet?”
Me “No thankfully the core remains intact”.
Other Person “Ahh, I was hoping it was a full meltdown”
Me “Excuse me?”
Other Person “Well if it was a big explosion then it might convince everyone to stop using Nuclear because it is too dangerous”.
…
Suffice to say this comment just floored me.
####
Sad … but I have heard worse. I am from Arizona, one of the birth places of eco-terrorism. I know people who believe that sabotaging a Nuclear Reactor to cause a catastrophic meltdown is a good way to show people how dangerous Nuclear Power is. The Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant has been attacked several times. During its construction, greeny moles who slipped through pre-hire security checks, were doing work that was intended to fail. After a welder was caught breaking welds that had been inspected, then covering up the damage, a reinspection of the whole cooling system was done. It sure looked like the idea was not to prevent the plant from coming on line, but for it to become operational and then experience a news-making catastrophic meltdown because of a cooling system failure.
johnnythelowery says:
March 14, 2011 at 6:42 am
” If it wasn’t Gorbachev who said it, i’d never believed it. That is what Gorbachev knew. That’s why he decided to dismantle the S0viet Union(among things).”
Gorbachev decided to dimantle the Soviet Union? Is that why he described the declarations of independence by the Baltic states as ‘criminal acts,’ and sent in the Red Army to put down the uprisings.
Gorbachev had no intention of dismantling the Soviet Union – he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (or right place at the right time, depending on your point of view). He could no more close the floodgates of liberty than could Hosni Mubarrak in Egypt. Anyone who lived through that period witnessed the uprisings of the people against the state. It was a revolution in the purest sense.
The people of Romania are proud of their revolution – they have photographs adorning walls of bars showing ordinary soldiers fighting the forces loyal to the dictator Caucescu. Tell them how it was Gorbachev who set them free.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:16 am
‘potential to fail’
________________________
There is greater certainty of death from failing to provide the energy we need to support billions of people on the planet. How many people will suffer starvation, illness and ultimate death because we were scared witless by people with an agenda to kill off nuclear power and force us to accept centralized command and control government planning, with blackouts and food shortages? Think Soviet Union. Is that what we want?
Nuclear power has the potential to free all of us, and that is not what the international bankers and elites want. Nuclear power especially in the form of newer designs are 1000x safer than 1960s designs. And so far, nobody has died of radiation in Japan from these older failed reactors. In fact, they haven’t failed yet. Their reduntant safety systems are containing the vast majority of radioactivity.
Notice how there is very little reference to an amount of radiation compared to a meaningful reference. What does 1000x higher than ‘normal’ mean. Sounds pretty scary. Background levels can vary by orders of magnitude depending on where you live. What could serve as a reference level is your normal background dose from natural sources such as 40K in your body right now. We tolerate that energetic radiation quite well.
I hope the reactor story will be a non-story. The real lesson is the engineering was pretty darn good. Even a disaster far larger than these plants were designed to handle hasn’t resulted in widespread high-level contamination. No one has died. It is likely that no one will die from radiation. The systems worked to prevent a huge catastrophe.
Japan will not give up nuclear energy. They will rebuild, but use newer designs. The US and UK should not be deterred from a nuclear renaissance. Nuclear power will free us from foreign fossil fuel dependence. We have enough uranium and thorium to last centuries. Nuclear energy can even support a new hydrogen fuel economy. These steps will take decades.
Turning to green power with windmills and solar panels will result in one or more generations suffering through a third-world living conditions. That direction would be cruel punishment for millions of people. Green energy will kill people for sure, at a slow steady grinding pace through illness, starvation, poverty and depression.
Energy permits us to do things that otherwise would not be possible. High per capita energy use is NOT a bad thing. It is sustainable. We just have to change our energy source slowly and steadily away from fossil fuels to nuclear power.
Where would we be now if we had been afraid to bring fire into the cave?
I have been involved in the industrial/commercial thermal insulation (temperature control insulation) industry since1977. Some of the many projects I have been involved with in that time, were nuclear power generating plants (while under construction). The plants I worked on were designed as Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR’s). As I was a very young Field Engineer at the time, I was hired in late 1981 to assist in retrofitting seismic support systems (simply, pipe hangers and vessel/pump “hold-down” systems) that required upgrading by the NRC – due to lessons learned from the TMI event. In my life, TMI strangely gave me a way to enter into what would become my personal life-long work career. Strange how these things happen…
Back to it. My main point is this: the more modern (post-TMI) PWR designs, incorporate safety systems that are not installed at the older PWR’s, and were not designed into the even more primitive Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) systems. For the “modern” PWR’s in addition to more robust seismic support for the systems, the other safety features are the Containment Spray (CS) and Safety Injection (SI) systems. Even though (at least to me!) the systems seem self-explanatory, let’s review what these systems are designed to do in the event of a reactor scram (for whatever reason).
Safety Injection pumps (electrically powered) pull water from intially the SI tanks, and inject it directly into the reactor vessel to keep it cool. Secondarily, the water can come from the main source of the cooling water for the plant (river, lake, ocean, etc.). Conatinment Spray takes water from the CS systems sources (primary + backups as previous) and basically sprays the water from the reactor containment roof, to assist in cooling the inside of the containment building. Neither of these emergency safety systems are installed in the BWR plants that are now experiencing problems in Japan. That being said, the issues of available electricity to run the pumps needs to be assured (or the PWR’s would start to heat up as in Japan, regardless of design, unless SI/CS water was gravity-fed as others have stated). In conclusion, what I am saying that in regards to “newer” (post-TMI) constructed PWR plants built throughout the world, redundant safety systems and upgraded seismic (earth-movement) support systems are already there. This makes them leaps and bounds more capable to withstand once-in-a-lifetime disaster events such as the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. Newer, more modern designs in to-be-constructed plants, would only included even safer technological advances. I am sure other engineers out there from the “old” nuclear construction industry can weigh in on this???
Regards,
Michael C. Roberts
An article by Zbigniew Jarowski, former chairman of UNSCEAR, the UN body that studied the health effects of radioactive fallout from Chernobyl:
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/cherno-zbigniew_fear-06.htm
Let’s see it was hydrogen explosions that blew the roof off both buildings so we should now eschew this as a possible fuel for vehicles. No fuel cell tech, possible explosions.
If they had built CANDU reactors like Canada and Argentina they would not have had any of the above treasure trove of problems. Heavy water + U235. Not all nukes are alike.
Reactors should not need the presence of something pressurized to remain safe and cool. That is a no-brainer.
Personally I favour Throium-Flouride and geothermal. Some solar-thermal with pumped water storage is good for say, South Africa/Lesotho. There are much simpler options than cranky wind and steam-puffing fast breeder reactors.
the tree huggers are all happy now
From johnnythelowery on March 14, 2011 at 6:42 am:
Yeah, it’s hard to search for when not spelled correctly.
Wikipedia: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
Okay. From the Wikipedia entry:
The problem was acid dripping onto the carbon steel head, thus there would have been no particles to show up in the coolant filters. The corrosion was from the outside going inward, stopping at the stainless steel as it should have, not from the inside out. And 3/8″ (not 1/8″) of stainless steel to hold in ~2500 psi sounds adequate, hydraulic cylinders at 3000 psi can have only 1/4″ wall thickness, but don’t take that as any sort of endorsement as it was a dangerous situation that immediately needed fixing and shouldn’t had happened anyway.
The Wikipedia entry goes further than you, citing more problems. It also says the 2002 incident led to $600 million in repairs and upgrades. Plant restarted in March 2004. Further,
Now, note the commission date of the plant is July 31, 1978.
That “#4 of the Top 5” incident was before commissioning, during low-power testing. The regulatory system worked, the flaw was discovered early.
The reactor head hole was #5 of the Top 5. Neither resulted in exposure to dangerous levels of radiation.
It may not sound too great, but if that’s what the bottom two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents look like, those below the top five can’t be all that terrible.
Malaga View says:
March 14, 2011 at 6:28 am
Re: How many were killed by the Three Mile Island incident?
Nobody knows the long term answer to that question….
what do you call longterm?
How many in the 32 years since it happened?
many? some ? none?
Hugo-
The back up generators arrived and apparently the plugs did not match up with plant receptacles. That’s what’s incomprehensible.
@Peter Taylor:
… as of course happened at Hiroshima and Chernobyl. This is hysterical rubbish.
No, the US did not come close. There was never any danger whatever of the reactor vessel being breached, much less the containment building. A crucial fact about TMI that is not understood is that the accident occurred because poorly-trained operators persisted in overriding automatic systems that were trying to shut the reactor down long before there was any danger of permanent damage. And this was with a reactor design nearly 40 years old. And still there was no dangerous radiation release.
Having said that, though, one thing that bothers me about the Fukushima One situation is the way the top of the containment building was apparently just blown off by the hydrogen explosion. In the US, containments are domed (to maximally spread pressure), poured of the hardest concrete available over a very tight web of high-strength pedigreed rebar. (In the early ’80s I worked at several nuke construction sites.) It’s inconceivable that the outer containment of such a plant could be damaged by an internal hydrogen explosion.
From the photos, it appeared that the Fukushima containment was much flimsier. Anybody have any specific information on this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
The wiki that I quoted at the top of the comments has been altered.
A case of “can’t face facts so change facts”??
DanB, one source noted that the containment on the Japanese reactors is much weaker than at TMI. Of course Chernobyl didn’t even have a containment unit.
Look next to “Disaster Waiting to Happen” and Chernobyl will be there. The plant was an absoloute disgrace to design.
@Jeremy:
Once again, contentless ad hominem in lieu of factual argument. Dr. Oehmen makes a lengthy and detailed case for the safety of the plant, yet all we see from the hysterics is evil corporations, evil corporations, evil corporations. When does the Left plan to grow up?
Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro – world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html