It looks like this way of thinking assigns zero value to frightening most of the world population. Everybody is assured that there is nothing to be frightened about, yet all the damage and dead bodies lead people with emotions to conclude that those making assurances are guessing or lying or both. You guys are willing to stake a lot of other people’s lives and livelihoods and homes on these assurances. Yet exclusions zones at Chernobyl and Fukushima suggest that you be given no credibility.
I agree that frightening most of the world’s population is a really bad thing. People who extrapolate a 30km exclusion zone in Japan into a reason for the whole world to be frightened, for example, should probably be given no credibility.
Yes, provided that they are at no risk of living within that kind of a distance of a nuclear reactor or having one move in next door.
And how many dead bodies would that be?
I guess I misunderstood you. You were talking about nuclear power in general rather than Fukushima in particular?
Am I one of “You guys”? How do you know this? I said nothing about anything, here, except that evidence of fear is not evidence of danger. That people in Tokyo are afraid does not indicate that they have something rational to be afraid of, and thus does not give any evidence that there is actually anything dangerous in Tokyo. There might be, but what he said about his Facebook friend is not evidence of it.
BTW, where are the dead Fukushima-related bodies? The people in question are afraid, because people like you are fear-mongering, making up non-existent dead bodies.
ETA: I live 3 miles away from 3 nuke plants, 2 of the same design as Fukushima. Should I start shitting my pants, yet?
There actually have been two deaths at Fukushima since the quake - one was actually during the quake, when a worker fell off a crane. That was death by gravity, not radiation. The second was last week, when a worker apparently suffered a heart attack. That was believed to be connected to stress and overwork and not radiation.
Two workers received minor skin irritation when their boots leaked while they were walking through contaminated water. They are expected to get better and have no particular long term effects though of course, since the radiation level at plant site is elevated everyone there should be monitored long-term for cancer. That really is the significant risk for them, an elevated chance of cancer.
Good, we have a clear statement here, which I am really looking forward to hearing from you on how you have formed this strong of an opinion. For the discussion, I will presume that you, like me, do not have any particular expertise on the Fukushima power plant itself, Tepco or the government oversight committee, (and correct me if this is a mistaken assumption) so it should be straightforward to provide cites for this statement.
I’ve had this discussion with other people, and I’ve searched on the net, but have been sorely disappointed by the dearth of information supporting your position. I hope that you can provide more insight, especially with the clear stance you have taken.
As I will go into greater detail below, I’ve been involved in designing, marketing and selling systems (for another field) for over 15 years, and while it was not in the nuclear or even power field, a great deal of my professional life has been spent examining potential risks and weighing costs. I am glad for an opportunity to debate this topic with someone who is confident of their answers.
From my experience I would sincerely hope that considerable care would be taken, especially when considering the dire consequences of inadequate planning.
I’ll start off with the basic argument contending that they did not take the dual threat seriously. I’ll appeal to someone who should be considered an expert on Fukushima,
Read more: Japan did little to heed possibility of tsunami hitting nuclear plants
Unfortunately, the Net being the Net does not mean everything can be believed, but I think that sources can be reasonably assessed to a rough degree of credibility.
This will be a main point of debate, if the preparations were adequate and reasonable for potential damage. I will also ask for sites for this argument, since what I read directly contradicts your contentions.
First, has the plant “which it survived fine btw”? You and I are working with different definitions of “fine.” While none of the reactors have completely collapsed, there are many indications of severe damage including the possibility that the foundations have cracked, which critics contest is allowing contaminated water to enter the ground water. This begs the question of the large amounts of water leaking from the PVC and containment structures, which indicate they are compromised to some degree.
Can you please define “fine” because this does not seem fine to me.
Next, is the question of “the wall.” Can you please provide a site for having a wall to protect against tsunami? I can find references to the plant being built on a 13-foot bluff and having offshore breakwaters designed to protect against the more likely typhoons and not tsunami. Cite:
This seems to be an important factor, so let’s establish if your account or the new account is correct.
Now for the question about the projected tsunami.
From the same article quoted above,
If true, this is a damning statement, as Tepco was projecting a tsunami which was too high for the facilities, and yet failed to take adequate measures, not only limited to the level of the pump, but also the location of the backup generators and also the electrical switching systems. Tepco has been faulted for having all of its back up equipment, including the switching equipment between the back up and the main system in a basement, and it this statement is correct, then if the eleven years after these guidelines, Tepco failed to come up with a plan on how to adequately protect against even their own overly optimistic projections. Here, again, I gladly welcome cites which would counter this, as it seems to be criminally negligent to me.
This touches one area of my expertise, system design (but in a different field), which I’ll cover further below.
Also, same article
So, we have seismic and tsunami experts who say that an earthquake of 7.5 could have created a tsunami which would have overtopped the bluff, and which would seem to have likely overwhelmed their system.
Japan suffers 20% of the world’s largest earthquakes, and to ignore these experts in unconscionable.
I’ve found a number of experts who reflect this, but have yet to hear anything which contradicts this. I welcome your rebuttal and any cites which would show the TEPCO did more due diligence.
IIRC, the decision on the level of danger was primarily fiscal, they arbitrarily picked the level of the earthquake that hit Tokyo in 1923 and designed to plant for that. As cited above, experts say that the potential for danger was downplayed. A quick google search will provide enough reading for days concerning this.
From the article in the New York Times, linked in my previous post, about the citizens legal struggles over the potential for danger to a plant located directly over a fault like, amount other sources, it can be shown that the nuclear industry has underplayed the potential for the likelihood of the level of danger and the amount of damage. Again, I’ll gladly welcome informed cites indicating this isn’t true for the case of Tepco. Unfortunately, they have a history of falsifying data and covering up issues, but that’s another issue.
You have strongly emphasized that it was this was “their one REAL mistake” while many experts are saying this this was a series of tragic mistakes.
I say that they did not take the potential danger seriously and now comes another main point, if the level of preparations were adequate.
This is where my experience comes in, as being involved in the planning, marketing, sales and implementation of systems. I will rely on that experience for my argument and will welcome valid counterarguments as to why that expertise would not necessarily be valid in this case.
I’m not saying or arguing that, so this isn’t a point of contention. In fact, when I present system designs to customers I specifically show we cannot possibly address all scenarios.
I completely, 100% reject this as an excuse for being unsafe. The FAA does not give carte blanche to older planes simply because they are old, and power companies and over sight agencies should never have allowed an unsafe facility to continue to be operated, yet it seems the operating lifetime was extended, despite warnings concerning safety.
Not true, as shown above.
Thank you. “Sometimes shit just happens.” I think this one sentence eloquently sums up the reason why this disaster converted me from the pro-nuclear to anti-nuclear camp. Because it is the hubris of those who build nuclear plants close to major faults, fail to take the warning of experts, close their eyes to real, potential dangers and then say “sometimes shit happens.”
I design, build, market, sell and install and maintain systems. This is what I do. We always “blue team” issues, have someone else look at potential problems and what can be done better and balance this against risks and costs.
As I always tell clients, you can pay for it now or pay later. There is always a cost involved. You cannot build a system which will not fail, but you need to look at what will likely fail, or what can fail, and what are the associated costs involved.
You have to look at what could likely fail, and assign priorities, risks and potential costs. It is impossibly too expensive to completely duplicate systems, however, experience and knowledge (including outside resources) can provide the guidance for which backups are required. It is painfully obvious to an experienced eye that this was not done in Fukushima.
Anytime one problem (disaster, fire, earthquake, tsunami, missed plane, etc.) knocks out multiple backup systems, you do not have multiple redundancies. You only have one. Again, this is a system design failure, and usually occurs because of failing to “blue team” a design.
Without blue teaming a problem, you cannot be prepared for a disaster. I tell clients that we are not system designers, we are publishers. The most important service we provide is the standard operating procedures for what do to when there is a system failure. Since you cannot protect against all possible contingencies, you draw up procedures on what to do in the event of a failure or failures, starting off with the most likely.
Tepco simply failed to consider the seriousness of the potential danger from an earthquake and a tsunami, in a country which sits on convergence of three plates and was not anywhere near being prepared. Considering the enormous potential damage to humans and the environment and the huge cost and devastation this will be to the economy, I think this is grossly negligent, fully aware of significance of that term.
Here is my evidence. I have shown that the danger was not taken seriously enough and now challenge you to demonstrate your claim.
Nuclear power was sold as a safe source, and shows again why trust in corporations and inadequate government agencies should never again be so freely given. They failed to perform their jobs and to protect the people. If the cost of building reactors safely is too high, then an alternative must be found.
Which also sums up my opposition to nuclear power. Despite the relatively recent disaster from the tsunami following the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, there is little evidence that sufficient attention was paid to the real possibility for the same potential in Japan.
XT has mastered transcribing what the execs and companies say and presenting that as reasonable debate. When you say exec, or Harvard MBA, he pulls out the knee pads.
You can trust the nuke plants execs and spokesmen. Believe what the bankers say because they are so smart and so well educated.
They lie. They always lie. It is about money. Lots of money.
Dealing with these thieves requires extreme regulation. They will risk a city to make money. They will force politicians to shred regulation and safety rules, just because they make more money. They will buy off the regulators. They offer them future high paid jobs as lobbyists.
Depressingly likely to be correct. I even wonder if some relatively minor and inexpensive modifications wouldn’t have been adequate to harden these plants against inundation, such as snorkelling the diesel backup intakes and exhausts up the sides of the buildings and improving the sealing of the basements where they were located.
Wall Street Journal article on the early events at Fukushima after the earthquake, well worth a read. Fresh Tales of Chaos Emerge From Early in Nuclear Crisis - WSJ
That link only works if you’re a subscriber.
Odd. Works for me and I’m not a subscriber. Maybe it’s a location thing. Try Googling Fresh Tales of Chaos Emerge From Early in Nuclear Crisis and see if you get a valid link.
That was my first thought, that things could have – and should have – been done relatively inexpensively which would have prevented most of the problems. I had thought of snorkels for the generators, either waterproofing the electrical system or at least providing an isolated alternative routing, bringing in a connection from the other power company (which they eventually did), having fire hoses for the spent fuel pools, etc.
Obviously, not all of these may be practical, but the lack of preparations is further confirmation of what former Tepco engineers themselves are saying, that tsunamis were not even on the radar.
For those who aren’t into system design, and may not be as familiar with the concept of “blue teaming,” you need to have someone competent poking holes into your project. What happens if a terrorist gets in? Where could they do the most damage? If the Mississippi overflows and washes out the roads, what do we do? (This is where having a back up of a second vehicle is no backup.)
Then, you estimate risks, consult experts and device strategies to handle the situations. Part of this process is outlined in the PDF which Matt linked.
The tragic – and possibly criminal – part is that the some of the changes implanted in the US reactors could have greatly reduced the severity of the problem.
For questions concerning the Tepco (Tokyo Electric), the article I quoted yesterday goes on to say:
It doesn’t stop at being frightening, it means that if the company is lying to regulators and the government is not finding these flaws, then it means that nuclear power is no longer an option for Japan. This is a systemic problem which cannot be reasonably expected to be solved.
Interesting read, thank you.
Tepco has been trashing the government in the Japanese tabloid press, which loves bashing PM Kan, so it’s interesting to read a story where they have taken the government’s spin. Tepco has claimed that Kan’s helicopter visit was the reason for the delay in venting and that the government first allowed and then rescinded the use of a military helicopter to get the Tepco president up from Nagoya on the night of the 11th.
By the same logic, I can take the BP/Gulf of Mexico Debacle and extrapolate that oil is no longer an option for America.
Except that Deepwater saw greater direct fatalities, probably comparable or greater environmental contamination, and was not kicked off by a massive earth quake.
I am not trying to diminish the impact of the disaster in Japan. However, to point out that Tepco and the Japanese government both failed to be sufficiently diligent does not mean that suitable checks and balances cannot be put in place to prevent such failures occurring again.
By whom? Which set of beings to we trust with this, who are immune to greed and folly?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/19/japan-nuclear-amano-idUSLDE74I0XF20110519
Todays update. The plants have been leaking radiation for over 2 months now.
Three of the reactor pressure vessels have cracks . Dropping cement on top of them will not fix the leaking .
Who do you think should regulate biological research, genetic modification, gene research or indeed any one of a number of topics with the easy potential to fuck up humanity in a very short period of time?
The whole idea that nuclear is too dangerous to be trusted to government regulation is frankly fucking terrifying. Nuclear is inherently less risky than a number of topics that are actively researched. Topics that we need researched, as otherwise we start hitting the sort of resource conflict issue that will see some very serious issues.
So, you tell me. Nuclear too scary for any possible framework of government regulation of corporate activity? Well, best shut down every bio-research facility going then.
Really, this is the best cite you can obtain to try to keep the doom mongering rolling?
“Japan’s nuclear crisis remains very serious but there are some signs of progress, the head of the U.N. atomic agency said on Thursday.”
Oh for fuck’s sake, try fucking harder. If I can repeat the example, Deepwater killed 11 people immediately (i.e. not a fucking crane operator caught in a tsunami), took 6 months to fully cap, happened without any major natural catastrophe kicking things off, highlighted a lack of government oversight, and as any bastard who works in e&P can tell you was just an extreme example of the sort of problem that happens in exploration every year…so, do we give up oil as well?
Or, for a truly obscene example of poor management of corporate behaviour, how about Bhopal? 3000 dead within 7 weeks, directly attributable deaths of 10,000 in the first year…should we ban the use of pesticides?
Any twat who believes that the events in Japan are somehow indicative of Nuclear power having a particular problem is mind-numbingly ignorant of the actual running costs of their day to day existence.
There is nothing needed to keep it rolling. this situation is an absolute mess. I was simply providing an update.
I do understand you nuke apologists are way over your heads trying to sweep this disaster away.
Note: I was a fan when i was young. I thought nuke was the answer. It has proven clearly to be otherwise. Sorry, but the profit motive will keep the builders, designers and maintainers lying and cutting corners to increase profits. Nuke energy is one field where that can not be allowed.