In that sense, Chernobyl was not that serious either, at least initially, only a few handful had died.
We could even go one step further and say, if 2 million people died from this, it would not be that big a deal either, since there have been bigger disasters and plagues throughout history that have killed more.
You can spin and twist words any way you want, but either way, this is bad for Japan, and potentially bad for the rest of the earth in terms of increased cancers and other ailments further down the line.
There were 30 deaths directly attributable to the initial disaster at Chernobyl. (32 if you count two people that died in a helicopter crash after trying to fly through the radiation plume 4 months later.)
So far, as far as I know, there have been zero deaths at Fukushima.
And anyway, it is perfectly possible to believe that this is serious and a big deal, and also still believe that it’s better than the alternatives.
No, even from the start Chernobyl was “that serious”. First, the fact that the first the world heard about it was from nuclear plant workers in Finland and Sweden hundreds of miles away detecting greater radiation outside their facilities rather than inside was a tip off the problem was serious, and it happened the same day as the accident. As soon as it was determined actual pieces of a working reactor core were ejected from the plant it was known to be “that serious”. The fact that the radiation monitoring devices went off the scale within minutes of the accident was a tip off it was “that serious” although the outside world wouldn’t know that for awhile.
At Fukushima most of the vented radioactivity blew out to sea, and it’s mostly in a form that will decay to harmlessness quickly. It took days for it to reach anywhere else, and those amounts were very small. No bits of the reactor were ejected. The radiation monitors showed dangerous amounts of radiation at the plant site itself, but nothing went off the scale.
Is Fukushima serious? Yes, yes it is. But it is NOT a Chernobyl level event.
Nope, can’t say that - 2 million dead of any cause is a big deal. For that matter 20,000 dead of any cause - like a tsunami - is a big deal. But, so far as we know, no one has died at Fukushima other than some poor guy who fell off a crane during the earthquake. He died of gravity, not radiation.
Now, if some of those plant workers die of radiation sickness, or of cancer 10 or 20 years down the line, that will be tragic. But I can’t see this accident, even as serious as it is, having anywhere near the toll of Chernobyl.
What you don’t get is that this is NOT going to cause “increased cancers and other ailments further down the line” for the whole planet. No, not even if the fuel rods “blow up” (which at this point they’re less and less likely to as the pool temps are coming done). Outside of a very, very limited area any radioactive particles will be too dispersed, and too lost against the natural background radiation, and the lingering effects of all that above-ground atomic testing in the 1940’s and 1950’s, to make any difference.
Key differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima:
Chernobyl caused radiation deaths within days. So far, Fukushima has caused none a week into the problem, and may not cause any at all. It is reasonable to conclude that the death total from Fukushima is going to be much, much lower than at Chernobyl, if there are any deaths at all.
Chernobyl required tons of crops not only in the Ukraine but across Europe to be destroyed due to contamination. Close to Fukushima some crops are showing elevated levels of radioactivity, but since most of the Bad Stuff blew out over the Pacific it’s not going to reach North America in sufficient quantities to require destruction of crops there.
At Chernobyl an active reactor really did blow up and spew chunks of itself around the local area. At Fukushima the reactor cores stayed in the reactors. The explosions were outgassing hydrogen which, while they did cause damage, did not leave chunks of reactor core laying about the neighborhood. This means little, if any, of the area around Fukushima will need to be off limits long term whereas Chernobyl still has about 180 years to go with the best estimates before it’s safe to raise a family there.
Is this bad for Japan? Yes, it is. The loss of generated power is bad. The economic impact of needing to keep some of the farm produce out of the food chain for awhile (two months for concerns about iodine, longer for anything with cesium in it) is bad. You know what else is bad? Having a big chunk of coastline smashed up by a tsunami, which is going to have an even bigger economic and human impact that the problem at Fukushima.
Acts of omission do not necessarily constitute lies and deception as you assert. You would do well to consider that keeping you informed with regular, detailed status updates may not be a real high priority at this time.
Doesn’t follow fallacy. Are you reading what you type or just pouring out hopelessly confused thoughts as they escape your consciousness?
Yep - just emotionally charged confusion spewing now.
Going “back to the trees” seems but a few short steps down the path along this line of thinking.
He (levdrakon) took the point of embellishing the nuke scare the moment he decided to post in this thread.
Is the “quit obfuscating” part some new form of internally juxtaposed oxymoron?
Thanks for setting the example, there.
I nominate you for Energy Secretary.
I hope to be standing right nearby a breached reactor core if I happen to be on the wrong side of the planet when a giant meteor hits.
Well, that sure puts things in perspective. Thanks for that!
This thread is like the Energizer Bunny. I expect as the situation improves in Japan an no large scale release of radiation is detected a la Chernobyl that the theme will start to change to hidden deaths (or the always popular Dim Mak deaths) and cover ups. That seemed to be the trajectory during TMI anyway, and I expect that it will be the same here (possibly already happened in this thread…I haven’t kept up since I’ve been out of town until last night).
When I was a much younger fool, I fell in love with old Warner Bros cartoons, you know what I mean, Bugs and Daffy: The Early Years. After the years of deranged farm animals on acid dancing to stupid music.
I remember my curiosity being piqued by WWII era cartoons, which made references to various forms of rationing as a patriotic activity. For particular interest, sometimes the line “Is This Trip Really Necessary?” popped up several times. So I asked my grandparents, and they explained that it was a very common slogan of the time, urging Americans to consider how much gasoline they used, how much could be saved for the war effort, etc.
Somehow, we have to awaken that in Americans today, we have to inspire the most grossly self-indulgent people on the face of this Earth to prudence. (Many of us in the moonbat community have been trying to do this for decades, its taking a lot longer than we thought, and we could use your help if you’ve nothing better to do…)
The top of our agenda should be the wise use of what we have already got, rather than desperately seeking ways to give our planet the business, as usual. As I mentioned, if the problem with Paris Hilton is grossly excessive spending habits, the answer does not lie in exploring ways to increase her allowance.
“Fuel rods? What fuel rods? We didn’t have any fuel rods in there. It’s a plutonium breeder reactor. After we are done enriching the plutonium it is shipped elsewhere. Stay calm.”
I’ll take a WAG at it, on the condition that everyone understands its a WAG, and that I am a far better source of information about this than say, FOX news. Which isn’t saying much, but I’m pretty sure I am.
There are six nuclear reactors at the Fukushima plant. The six reactors are each housed in their own building, and we can call that a unit. Units 5 & 6 have power and cooling AFAIK. All the six units have spent fuel pools. Either unit 3 or 4’s spent fuel pool is a ground-level(ish) central pool for all the units. The fuel pools in the other units are elevated pools.
That’s unit 3, and I think that’s where the central, ground-level pool is. That’s why when hydrogen gas built up and exploded, it took off most of the above-ground portion of the building.
WAG: Units 1, 2 & 4, have elevated spent fuel pools, and that’s why, when hydrogen gas built up above those pools, the explosion only blew off the very topmost parts of the units. You can see that clearly looking at unit 1. Unit 4 lost a whole side of the building, and I’m not sure what the inside configuration of that building was.
Anyway, I can’t tell you exactly where the pool is in unit 3, but it was probably ground level, so if you’re thinking the spent fuel pool with most of the plutonium fuel is now gone, that’ not the case.
Cooling pool next to reactor containment, makes no sense. They use a crane to lift the rods in and out, and they have to keep them submerged when doing so, no way a storage pool is at ground level. They are right next to the top of the reactor.
You’re right. Pool cuddled up around reactor, bad (but cost-effective!) plan. I imagine newer designs realize this, but of course we aren’t going to be seeing very many newer designs being built.
Yes way the pool was at groundish-level, because if it were elevated, it has now been completely obliterated and no amount of government/media cover-up could censor that fact.
Nobody said it was a Chernobyl. It had the potential of becoming a Chernobyl. The core pressure container could have exploded. It would not have covered an area the size of Chernobyl but it would have been worse for Japan in comparison to Russia because land is a more valuable asset in Japan.
It’s nice that you have a glass-half-full mindset with irradiated food and wind patterns but the people in Japan need to know worst case scenarios so they can plan accordingly. All it would have taken was a low pressure system to change the wind patterns and fire in the spent fuel pools to send radioactive particles in any direction. If you want to live 12 miles away and dance in the rain with an umbrella that’s your call but I would move 50 miles away and stay indoors because it pays to prepare for the worst. The transportation infrastructure was compromised so it made it that much harder to flee if things spun out of control.
You have to read between the lines when predicting for the worst. The spinach wasn’t grown in the ocean. When it showed signs of radiation that is a clear indication of what would happen as more and more radiation is released. They still don’t have control of the reactors a week later. Yes it appears to be getting better each day but when this first happened they had virtually no control of the situation. This was at a time when the potential for serious aftershocks existed.
Yeah, it is one more thing to deal with, and a pretty big deal at that, when they really don’t need one more thing to deal with, and it would be better not to have to deal with it at all.
So yeah, if your perspective starts only after the tsunami waters recede, and the population still alive at that point, then hell yeah this nuke business is really horrible.
What I disagree with is that when you have just had 15,000 people killed, something that is not killing anyone, with the chance of killing a hundred or so worst case, is NOT “much, much worse.” Just making it “noticeably worse” would need lives lost within an order of magnitude, say 1,500. “Much worse” would need deaths of the same order of magnitude..say 5000. “Much, much worse” and you’d need more people dead, or at least sick, than the earthquake+tsunami killed.
This Fiasco is NOT making things “much, much worse” than they were already, and saying so is simply exageration. Honest comparison of the scale of the earthquake + tsunami with the radiation threat would be that the nuke crisis is “not helpful to disaster recovery efforts”…“a complicating factor”…“a further drain on stressed, and much needed resources.”
The real problem with these nuclear power plants is that the power generated by these and the others in Japan allowed a resource-poor island state to build an otherwise unsustainable population density and industrial based wealth that gave the earthquake and tsunami a far more target rich environment. If the Japanese had been corking off from lung diseases and poverty induced malnutrition since WW2, not nearly so many would have been around to die in the disasters.
For an informed person, there is a lot of dark humor in listening to “idiots” spew nonsense and propaganda, trying to convince people that nuclear is safe, has ‘always been safe’, whatever.
