Nope, not just because - because of a complex political situation wrapped up in nuclear hyesteria contributed to by historical scars on the national psyche.
They are releasing the water so slowly because even radiation levels that are scientifically proven to be completely safe are politically unacceptable to the Japanese public, which is perhaps understandable due to Japan’s history with nukes but no more rational for that.
This is the important stuff and what needs to be told.
Telling people they’re using words wrong is tone deaf and unproductive.
If we lived in a world where the term “Nuclear Disaster” did not carry certain implications, in a world where this very event was not being placed in the same category as motherfucking Chernobyl, I’d be inclined to agree with you. But in the real world that we live in, labeling this event a nuclear disaster is enormously destructive, and has probably already caused more harm than the failure of the Fukushima plant ever did.
Because of this sort of alarmism, Japan (and other countries as well, but let’s focus on Japan for now) moved away from nuclear power. This is a shift that still has not been corrected.
This is a disaster. This shift in policy has done far more damage to the environment and to the people of Japan than the nuclear plant ever did.
…the assertion was that “Once all of the remaining buildings and infrastructure in the city had been inspected for structural damage, and the damage that was found repaired, there was no reason to continue to keep people out.”
The reasons for “keeping them out” have been provided in this thread. I’ll quote it again:
That is, of course, a very basic explanation, written for people like me that aren’t experts in this stuff. But the experts thought there was a good reason to keep people out. Japanese government’s own numbers, in the opinion of the experts they engaged , justified maintaining the exclusion zones.
That is the evidence that actually exists.
So what is the suggestion here? The Japanese authorities got things wrong? Because I’m not buying it. Not based on what has been presented in this thread. Chronos has not supported the assertion that “there was no reason to continue to keep people out.”
What is in those tanks is not something you want to swim in.
What is being released is water from those tanks which has been treated to remove most of the bad stuff. What they cannot remove is tritium. They are making sure the release is slow enough that tritium levels are within acceptable margins.
The IAEA ranked Fukushima a seven on rankings of severity. Seven is the highest: “major accident”
No, they didn’t. I have pointed this out to you numerous times. The IAEA doesn’t rank anything. It just puts out a scale. The Japanese government rated Fukushima a 7 on the IAEA scale, after initially rating it a 5 (so 100 times lower), for political reasons.
No:
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) can confirm that the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) has submitted a provisional International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) Level 7 rating for the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. This new provisional rating considers the accidents that occurred at Units 1, 2 and 3 as a single event on INES and uses estimated total release to the atmosphere as a justification. Previously, separate provisional INES Level 5 ratings had been applied for Units 1, 2 and 3.
Japanese authorities notified the IAEA in advance of the public announcement and the formal submission of the new provisional rating.
The provisional rating was determined by NISA after it received the results of the analysis conducted by the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES). NISA then applied the INES assessment methodology to calculate the total estimated release in terms of radiological equivalence to I-131. Based on this provisional assessment, NISA concluded that the accident would be provisionally rated INES Level 7 as per the definition below, taken from the INES User’s Manual (2008 Edition).
Level 7
“An event resulting in an environmental release corresponding to a quantity of radioactivity radiologically equivalent to a release to the atmosphere of more than several tens of thousands of terabequerels of I-131.”
NISA estimates that the release of radioactive material to the atmosphere is approximately 10% of the Chernobyl accident, which is the only other accident to have an INES Level 7 rating. - SOURCE
You’re so cute when you’re so confidently wrong! From your quote, emphasis mine:
Who is this NISA?
What definition did they use? Does the IAEA disagree? The IAEA is reporting it as a seven. Is the IAEA only a parrot for whatever someone tells them?
Look, this word game is getting tiresome. It’s one thing to suggest that Fukushima wasn’t as bad as is popularly understood, or as it could have been. It’s quite another to insist there’s a fixed definition of disaster that specifically limits “disaster” to large-scale human death and/or injury, and oddly enough completely disregards economic losses.
That’s simply not the case. Consider these uncontroversial uses of “disaster”
Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster
Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster
Those are 7 humans apiece, and a few billion dollars, and they barely threatened any wider loss of life. Those are only 2 examples. I’m sure some of you would argue the technicalities that those aren’t disasters either, because you’ve gone so far in on the prescriptivism that at this point you can’t do otherwise.
Instead I will just point out that your insistence on doing so is a misguided, idiosyncratic fringe position, and it risks creating the impression that nuclear advocates want to steamroll the public’s concerns with tendentious rule-lawyering. That would be a real nuclear disaster.
Yes! I am glad you’re finally getting it. At Japan’s request, the IAEA reviews Japan’s procedures and ensures that they meet minimum international safety standards. If they don’t, the IAEA report says so, and advice on how to meet standards may be given. Otherwise, all you’ll see is the sort of statements that were linked above, where the IAEA said “we measured such and such amounts of radiation in the water released by Japan; this is consistent with safety standards applied by the international community. The decision on how to handle this process should be made at the national level.”
The definition they used is the one provided by the IAEA, but as the numerous scientific studies linked above show, these definitions are vague and mapping of past events to the scale has been highly inconsistent.
This is the full text of the definition:
Major Accident. Level 7. • Major release of radio active material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures
I would argue that Fukushima clearly cannot meet this definition because there were no widespread health or environmental impacts to the release. But the scale is so vaguely defined as to be completely worthless; what is a “major release” or a “widespread health effect”?
Compare that to something like the Richter Scale, which measures the magnitude of physical force released in an earthquake. Objective, numerical, scientific. The IAEA scale is the equivalent of a pain chart with smiley to frowny faces in comparison.
The IAEA didn’t disagree when the same event was rated 100 times less severely. It is not their place to disagree with where the Japanese rate the disaster, only define the scale and report Japan’s results. You may not like this; you may think this is nonsensical; you may wish there was an international body with more authority that could be relied on here. None of that matters. The IAEA is simply not that kind of body.
We’re talking past each other. I agree with everything you say in this post.
Read what I wrote again: “telling people they’re using words wrong is tone deaf and unproductive”. Pedantry is par for the course on the SDMB (why, sometimes I’ve argued as many as six definitions before breakfast), but it’s not effective in the general world. We can make all the same points you’re making, and make them better, by not distracting them about definitions.
To put it bluntly, quibbling about words comes across as sophistry and many people will ignore everything you say after that. We have facts are out side; let’s pound the facts.
Yes, this is exactly my point.
Those are aerospace disasters. No question about that.
Are you fucking kidding me?
The Japanese government, pandering to the public’s concern, has already destroyed their own nuclear power sector. Other countries, like Germany, have followed suit.
The public is already freaking out over a non-issue. Just like the Satanic Panic in the 80s, only with far worse socioeconomic consequences.
The public’s unfounded concerns should be steamrolled - not by ignoring the public, but with an intense and lasting PR campaign to educate people.
But apparently educating people about how harmful radiation factually is is a form of Fallout-esque propaganda, according to some in this thread.
I’m not quibbling about words. I am arguing about attitudes. If you want to call Fukushima a disaster while restoring all the nuclear power plants in Japan and Germany and building a few hundred new ones around the world, I’d be ecstatic. But that won’t happen, because of the attitude that comes along with calling Fukushima a nuclear disaster.
This is a Dope thread, and I’m debating in that context. I don’t think the situation at Fukushima is accurately described as a nuclear disaster. I am horribly opposed to the attitudes that go along with calling Fukushima a nuclear disaster. But outside this specific thread about whether or not Fukushima was a disaster, I absolutely recognize that this is a moot point, and instead focus on the facts and figured that show how little impact or danger was created by the situation.
Thank you, seriously. We’re on the same side in the big picture and our mutual recognition that this is just the usual Dopery is reassuring.
Where is the threshold then? How many people have to die before it is a “disaster?” How much economic damage? It’s fine to ballpark this one, no need for fine lines.
This may seem like nitpicking but if you are “horribly opposed” to calling this a disaster then one supposes you have a notion of what does constitute a disaster so you can know which is which.
The UN believes that, so far, 50 deaths may be attributed to Chernobyl (not including immediate deaths due to the explosion and whatnot). That’s over 35+ years. Is that a nuclear disaster?
If you want to suggest that governments overreacted far in proportion to what actually happened, I’m fully on board with that.
If you want to suggest the overreaction could have been prevented by not calling Fukushima a “nuclear disaster”, it seems unlikely to me, and difficult to prove, and just a really counterproductive argument to make.
I’d start with the Post It Note test. If you can write everyone’s name down on a single Post It, using normal handwriting, it isn’t obviously a problem of huge importance.
I think it’s interesting that non-nuclear power generation kills more people every year than nuclear power has killed in the entire worldwide history of nuclear power, including Chernobyl, and people are ONLY scared of nuclear power.
I agree with you. I am all for more nuclear power.
It’s the weird quibbling that three nuclear reactors melting down is not a disaster.
When even one person dies, it is a tragedy. And as I’ve stated God knows how many times, there were two major disasters at Fukushima that you can attribute all the death and destruction to. But what Fukushima was not was a nuclear disaster. A nuclear disaster can be identified by the release of signifcant amounts of radioactive material into the environment, which did not happen at Fukushima. Even if they dumped all the water into the ocean tomorrow, I doubt you would see measurable radiation above background anywhere in the Pacific within a year due to this event. The amount of radioactive material contained at Fukushima is tiny, as has been explained over and over. For political reasons to do with Japan’s nuclear legacy, they are exercising and extreme abundance of caution in dealing with the water, and that’s totally fine. But it is factually not a significant amount of radioactive material.
Chernobyl killed multiple people at the time and irradiated huge chunks of the landscape that are still imminently dangerous to this day. That’s not the case at Fukushima. At all. Not even close.
You are correct that only avoiding the words “nuclear disaster” would not on its own resolve the deep-seated cultural issues our society has with nuclear power. I think that the fact that we fixate on nuclear “disasters” while ignoring the fact that we do far more damage to ourselves and to the environment through the ongoing and completely intentional peteochemical “disaster”.
Clearly you aren’t reading my posts, because I am not quibbling about that. The three nuclear reactors were destroyed as a result of not one but two disasters. Natural disasters - namely, an earthquake and a tsunami.
If an airplane is destroyed in its hangar by an earthquake, is that an aviation disaster?
One last time.
The nuclear power plant at Fukushima was struck by a pair of natural disasters. A combination of factors that included the good design of the reactors at the plant and the heroic efforts of workers at the site prevented nuclear disaster by preventing the spreading of any significant sources of radiation.