E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Athit Perawongmetha / Getty Images Contributor
A man undergoes a radiation test at a screening center in Kiriyama in Japan's Fukushima Prefecture, Japan.
Radiation experts are painting a sobering picture of the Fukushima nuclear disaster's long-term impact on Japan in a series of reports published today by the journal Nature. At best, the country faces more than a decade of expensive cleanup, including the decommissioning of the reactor complex and the disposal of contaminated debris. At worst, wide areas of land around the complex will have to be abandoned, as they were in Ukraine after Chernobyl.
"On the basis of the Fukushima data so far, it seems likely that in some areas, food restrictions could hold for decades, particularly for wild foodstuffs such as mushrooms, berries and freshwater fish," the University of Portsmouth's Jim Smith, co-editor and lead author of "Chernobyl: Catastrophe and Consequences," wrote in a Nature commentary.
Smith says the levels of radioactive cesium-137, with a radioactive half-life of 30 years, "will determine the long-term impact on the contaminated region and its residents."
"The extent of cesium-137 contamination at Fukushima is not yet clear, but available data indicate very high levels in some areas," he wrote. Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency sounded the alarm about high radiation readings in the village of Iitate, 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex. The readings ranged as high as 3.7 megabecquerels per square meter. Such readings led the IAEA to suggest an expansion of the current 12-mile-radius (20-kilometer) evacuation zone.
Since then, the reported readings outside the evacuation zone have not been as high. But Smith said that if large areas are contaminated with 0.5 megabecquerels per square meter or more, "evacuation could be for the long term."
One long-term strategy could be to bring in "liquidators" to decontaminate the towns and villages, remove topsoil and resurface roads, "although this approach met with varying success at Chernobyl," Smith wrote.
He said "the long-term response to Fukushima will have to be pragmatic." Radiation exposure limits for the general public might have to be relaxed, for example, going from 1 millisievert per year to 5 to 10 millisieverts per year. Smith noted that millions of people living in areas of high natural radioactivity are exposed to more than 10 millisieverts per year.
"A turning point in my understanding of Chernobyl's impacts came while studying lakes in Belarus during the mid-1990s," Smith wrote. "In an evacuated area, lake fish contained tens of thousands of becquerrels per kilogram. A couple in their early 70s lived near the lake, eating the fish and growing vegetables. They were living off contaminated land, but leading the life they had chosen to lead. This wouldn't by any means be the right choice for everybody, but I am convinced they had made the right decision for them: They were Chernobyl survivors, not victims."
Other reports in Nature's roundup hint at the uncertainties still hanging in the air three and a half weeks after the earthquake and tsunami that led to the Fukushima crisis:
- David Brenner of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research explains why experts "really don't know" that much about the long-term health consequences of Fukushima's radiation releases. He said authorities should start assessing "whether it would be reasonable to undertake large-scale population studies among the exposed populations in Japan." Meanwhile, researchers should focus more study on the basic mechanisms by which low doses of radiation cause cancer.
- The Japan-based Radiation Effects Research Foundation is calling on authorities to start collecting baseline data for a study of Fukushima's effects as soon as possible. Some of the basic measurements are already being collected, but the effort is "scattered and uncoordinated," researchers at the foundation say. In a separate report, Nature says researchers "are finding that making any sense of the data is proving very difficult."
- Japanese authorities have been monitoring the effects of radioactive iodine-131 on the thyroids of children in the most contaminated areas around Fukushima, and Nature says the first results show minimal thyroid doses in 946 children living in the areas northwest of the plant. The results "seem reassuring that not much iodine-131 has got into children," Richard Wakeford, an epidemiologist at the University of Manchester's Dalton Nuclear Institute, told the journal.
Are you reassured? Feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts about the long-term impact of the Fukushima crisis.
More about Japan's nuclear crisis:
- Radiation in ocean could hurt Japan fish industry
- Japan nuke firm offers 'condolence money'
- Cosmic Log archive on Japan's disaster
- Full coverage of the disaster on msnbc.com
Nature is presenting a live Q&A with the University of Portsmouth's Jim Smith and Nature's Geoff Brumfiel at 11 a.m. ET (4 p.m. London time) on Wednesday.
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
Are you reassured? No. Should I be taking a Geiger counter to the grocery store now? Should I?
Do you live in central mainland Japan?
It has become apparent that nuclear energy is not the answer. We can have a clean and healthy world without nuclear power, and meet our energy needs through energy efficiency and renewable, clean, and safe energy. The bottom line is that nukes are dirty, unsafe, deadly, and costly.
Government favoritism for nuclear energy in the form of subsidies, loan guarantees, and liability caps is not in our nation's interest and would commit our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and generations to come to storing toxic, highly volatile nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years and the Government has yet to come up with a policy or plan to safely store and transport the nuclear waste and protect it from natural or man made disaster. The dangers of nuclear power are an unacceptable risk to humanity and the environment.
So I ask you where is the plan to safely store nuclear waste?
Answer: They don't have one
Not if everyone on the planet wants to consume energy like Americans do.
Gen IV reactors are able to burn up the most of the wastes created by previous generations of nuclear power plants.
Even Gen IV reactors are vulnerable; and they do not actually "burn up" all the waste as you are claiming. You should also inform yourself of the facts before you judge others. I worked with nuclear cleanup and I can tell you right now about the face-to-face encounters I had with workers at nuclear sites with cancer because of their exposures.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Today's waste is tomorrow's fuel. No more waste. No more uranium mining. Safer energy; safer than 1960's tech nuclear, safer than coal, safer than oil and natural gas.
webbish6, your argument is nonsensical to say the least.
Also, most Newsvine posts are judgements of other people or other groups of people (on all sides). We all judge others, basically every waking hour of every day. That's a part of being a social human.
I'll be watching your posts from now on webbish6, since this is the only post you've ever made (under that user name at least). We'll see just how long you can go before you make a judgemental statement about someone else.
GendoIkari wrote:
.
Yes, this is just the beginning. With India having over 3x the population of the US, and China over 4x, worldwide energy consumption is going to skyrocket. What Americans use will seem like a drop in the bucket compared to what's to come.
.
Dr. Cat is so correct. Apparently "the good life" means driving a private car, having an air conditioner, a variety of electronic gadgets, and a big screen plasma tv. Currently, millions and millions of people in India and China are achieving "the good life" at a rapid rate that will surpass the USA within the next 5 years if growth continues as predicted. Japan is teaching the world a lesson. The Japanese people are confronting unspeakable suffering and they are doing so with grace, humility, and respect for our shared common humanity. This lesson is just beginning. The stakes are high. If we as a global community of human beings do not redefine "the good life", there may not be any life.
GendoIkari,
While the Gen IV reactors may be able to consume the MILLIONS of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel rods.
What are you going to do with the Billions of tonnes of radioactive material that the nuclear reactors are made from???
What about the ground water that has been contaminated by the many nuclear ACCIDENTS???
These are the things the Nuclear industry is IGNORING, just like the numerous HIGHLY Radioactive sites around the world that still have not been cleaned-up... The UK has the most radioactive site in the World, after 50+years they are still not cleaning it up...
France has over a dozen decommissioned nuclear power plants NOW, Germany will have dozens more in less than 14+years, the USA is looking at decommissioning over 100, and the World has over 300 that will reach their MAX service life in a little over TWO DECADES. With NO 'Long Term' storage site - Where they can place this radioactive material...
@ Witchking
I couldnt disagree with you more in terms of your conclusions on nuclear power. Like it or not, nuclear power is here to stay. The use of fossil fuels far, far outweigh the negative consequences of nuclear power. Wind and solar power are toted quite a bit, but there are many limitations to each, and their relative output pales in comparison to nuclear. "Clean coal" is a marketing rebranding effort more than anything else. As oil production vs. consumption skyrockets out of control over the next 2 decades, it will become crystal clear just how vital nuclear power is to our energy needs.
And yes, there is a place to store nuclear waste, it's called Yucca Mountain. A place that we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars constructing and ensuring to the nenth degree the saftey of this facility. Unfortunately, this has recently become the punching bag of politicians (re: Harry Reid) in recent years and they have effectively shut it down.
@ Alan
In terms of your comment about the "liquidators", assuming the local/federal government deems the current evacuation zone fit for living lets the evacuees return to their homes, I can foresee some sort of limited decontamination procedures in terms of buildings, some infrastructure. I certainly do not see surficial soil excavation as an option. Asides from the politics off it in terms of where to dispose of it, the actual costs for such an excavation at that large a scale would be unprecedented.
What they will likely do is 1) enact deed restrictions on the affected properties and prohibit commercial farming (vegetative or livestock) for XX amount of years. 2) mandate the abandonment of all public, private, and irrigational wells within the region 3) trench public water lines into these communities 4) institute some sort of medical surveillance program on the local population, and adjust future restrictions within this zone if medical exams warrant as such.
Agreed D.man. I see many many people on the vine and elsewhere that claim that nuclear power has to go. But... they never seem to understand the consequences of the alternative energy source. Coal power is currently the only source of power other than nuclear that can supply the electricity we use. As India, China and other countries enter into our range of electricity use per person, they will have 2 choices for power generation. Coal or nuclear. Coal is far more devastating to the environment in the long run compared to nuclear. Nuclear accidents are few and far between but coal plants spew out significant amounts of radiation and pollution when they're "running fine".
If anyone here decides that they're going to be against nuclear power, try going through the day without using electricity for about 20% of it. That's about the amount of power generation you'd be cutting out without nuclear. I don't think that people understand that they can't really be bashing nuclear power while simultaneously using electricity to keep their computer running 24/7, their heat on, their water running, and just about every device we use today.
doggysaywhat,
I'm currently living in a 2,000 s ft house with solar H20, NG stove/heat, NO a/c, and NO incandescent lights. My small PU is diesel and we have a gas motorbike. Last month I used 15K watt of electricity...
If I wanted I could supply ALL my electrical needs with several solar panels & a storage battery... Put I have chosen to pay less than $30+USD/mo for electricity.. BTY - My USA home which is 2,000 sq ft also and has many labor saving devices, including a geo-heat pump.. The electric bill was less than $60+USD last month.
It is only when you want the electric stove, hot H20 all the time, whole house a/c & heating, dish washer, clothes dryer, and all the other labor saving devices. This now makes you a slave to the power company, and you fuel the push for the requirements to need nuclear...
The USA has had SIX nuclear core melt-downs, during the last 60+years, one resulted in the DEATHS of the operators and another released radioactivity into the environment... The USA has built only 120+power reactors... Many of these are experiencing corrosion problems that have resulted in radioactive leaks into the environment... The average nuclear power plant has a service life of 60+years MAX, for this you have to store radioactive material for a THOUSAND+years...
Coal now supplies less tha 45% of the USA electrical needs, this has been falling for decades.Nuclear power supplies about 20% and is expected to drop to 15%, when many US reactors reach their MAX service life, in about 10+years.. NG and wind power are INCREASING their %s and have been for the last DECADE...
The bottom line - There is NO-Where to store the nuclear waste or radioactive material these power plants are constructed of. The WORLD currently has NO 'Long term' storage and the 'salt domes' and solid rock storage solutions have FAILED the viability test...
Well Congratulations on making such a small footprint. A couple of questions though:
How much did the upgrades to your house cost to make it cost less than 30 (or 60, you change the number in the next sentence) bucks a month? I know someone who installed about 75,000$ worth of solar panels on his roof and now gets credit with the power company most months as he is actually putting energy back into the grid (they won't pay him for it but supply credits when his usage exceeds what he produces.) This kind of cost is far beyond what most homeowners can and will spend for something that won't provide a return for probably 30 years, and most people simply don't have enough roof space for this to be a reality.
While I can agree that A/C is a luxury, it is not something most people are willing to do without. Do you have a serious suggestion for convincing people otherwise? Again, it is great that you are making the sacrifices, and more people should do the same, but unless you force people into compliance it simply isn't going to happen.
All this leads to one question, how do you realistically solve the energy crisis? Enact legislation to make everyone use as much energy as AC Robertson? Or create new sources of energy for the ever growing demands? I would hope it would be a mix of both until we can find a truly clean, renewable, and reliable source of energy. With the apparent hatred of all things related to government regulation these days, it probably won't turn out that way though.
Just read an article (and spoke to the author last night) showing that (in the author's case) installation of solar panels on his Tokyo roof will allow him to begin saving money after 18 years. The article does not allow for any increases or decreases in the cost of power or power consumption (and increases are likely, temporary ones having already been announced for this month), given the troubles TEPCO is having.
One positive aspect, regardless of the out-of-pocket costs, is that he's (a) not lost refridgeration in the power outages and (b) wil have access to tv and the Internet (provided the house is stil standing) in the event of a catastrophic earthquake or power outages in Tokyo.
You can't bury, wash away or dispose of radiation; it's there to stay. This is the 'Cost' against which should be considered when planning to harness the 'Benefits' of Nuclear Energy.
Only now are the governments of the world understanding the true ROI value of Nuclear Energy. It's apparant to me that the business case used to build some of the existing plants around the globe have underscored on the safety measures, (where to build & how) while overselling their safety to the public.
Anyone who states that their Nuclear Energy Facitities are 'Safe' is logically incorrect, whether they speak about the transportation of the fuel, use or storage of the waste thats left behind.
While I believe Nuclear Energy is the future source for the energy we need on a large scale, we must devise a set of standards to which will make the business case's ROI worth the risks.
Obviously building along oceanic coastlines is a bad idea. I would suggest that we demand that no more nuclear power plants are built along coastlines, as well as geologically unstable areas.
I would also suggest no more issuing permits for any Gen II plants, and any Gen III/III+ must go to extra lengths to demonstrate that the design is as safe as it can be made, and construction and operation is done exactly by the book.
The problem with requiring a 'realistic' business case (aka cost-benefit study) is that as the magnitude of risk-protective measures get increased, the cost of those measures starts to grow close to exponentially. There is a reason why 7.5 magnitude earthquake protective measures are adopted - the cost to protect against higher intensity earthquakes (not to mention any related tsunami) is extraordinary. Factoring in cost to protect against say, a 9.0 scale earthquake, would likely make the plant not economic to build because the cost of the electricity produced would be significantly greater than other alternatives.
If we are going to live in an industrialized world, then we have to have a reliable and abundant source of energy that isn't constantly polluting the environment as ALL fossil fuels do.
Nuclear power can be done safely. The extra cost should be irrelevant. We can start by stripping subsidies from the oil companies.
The fact is that if Fukushima Daiichi had been built uphill and inland a little ways, none of us would be having these conversations since March 11th.
Hello GengoIkari!
Gen IV is more efficient, less waste. The only Gen IV that I am aware of are the one 100megawatt (operational) and one just coming online, pebble bed reactors that the Chinese have built. I read that these are still being tweaked. The design looks good for control and safety. i would like to read the operations notes and tweaks from the Chinese.
Hello Kristen!
The fuel material for reactors comes out of the ground radioactive. It is refined. My position it that it should go right back into the ground. The very stable 2+ mile deep defunct potash mines of New Mexico would be a good start. South of Carlsbad, project Gnome was an underground test to determine if/how radioactives might propagate through strata. Check out the old Natl Geo articles. Also, the core of our Earth is said to be a mix of reconstituting Rare Earths, with our continents floating like slag on the plastic core.
Hi Max,
During the Soviet era, the Russians did operate what were basically Gen IV Lead-Bismuth coolant reactors in their Alpha Class submarines, which were rated at 155Mw. One Russian company has created a design for a 1,200Mw Lead-Bismuth pool type reactor with a ridiculously thick massive concrete foundation (I mean ridiculous in a good way). The Idaho National Labs operated a Gen IV Sodium coolant experimental reactor for 30 years, which I believe was rated at about 65Mw. That design could easily be scaled up to a gigawatt in size. I just don't like the explosive nature of Sodium and water, since there is a Sodium to water heat exchanger involved, but the heat exchanger isn't placed close to the core. However, if you had an explosion in the heat exchanger, will the core still have enough Sodium coolant to shut itself down safely?
There are 5 or 6 different types of Gen IV technology, with the type of coolant used being the main difference between them. If it doesn't use water as the coolant, it's a Gen IV design. Many of them are fast neutron "breeder" designs, which is why they can burn waste fuel from older water cooled designs. That, along with vastly improved safety by their very design, are the hallmarks of Gen IV tech.
The idea in most of the designs that I've studied was to remove the need for humans to do anything at all in the event of coolant pump system failure. They shut themselves down safely without the need for anyone to do anything. I much prefer the designs that use Lead-Bismuth alloy as the coolant. In a worst case scenario, the Lead alloy solidifies as it cools, and entombs the core in a perfect radiation shield.
You make a good point in your response to Kristen. While Gen IV will be able to transmute most of the fuels into stable isotopes, there would be some left over that would require storage. Somewhere in Area 51 is probably the best place within the U.S. since we tested a bunch of nuclear weapons just to the West of the Area 51 airstrip anyways.
GendoIkari,
You continually IGNORE what the WORLD, even with Gen IV designs, is going to do with the BILLIONS of tonnes of material that becomes radioactive, that these reactors are constructed of...
And we will also IGNORE the massive 'Thermal Pollution' that these plants emit, even when they are not producing any electricity...
The question to ask about the Gen III designs. When (not if) a nuclear accident/incident occurs and these explosive activated valves/systems activate. And after the water storage on the containment building is exhausted. What then??? They will be located in a concrete & steel containment building that could be fill with leaking coolant systems, explosive mixtures of Hydrogen gas, and increasing levels of radioactivity... You can go inside and try to stop the melt-down. Or are you just going to walk away, like TEPCO, originally wanted to do in Japan...
AC, Do you always come up with piles of cheap lies to argue with?
Stop being a tool.
GendoIkari,
Nice statements about the sodium-bismuth 1200Mw reactors on board the russian Alpha class submarines. Tell me how many Russian sailors died on those boats (approximately).
As a bonus question, why are there no more Russian Alpha class submarines in operation?
GendoIkari,
What lies???
Are YOU claiming that the World has any 'Long term' storage sites??? Name ONE in operation...
Are you claiming that reactor materials DO NOT become radioactive when being operated???
Are you claiming that reactors DO NOT emit massive amounts of heat when NOT generating electricity... I guess TEPCO is wasting their time cooling those reactors and used fuel rods...
I'm glad I do not live near ANY reactor YOU are connected with. You working for TEPCO???
Belgium
* Dessel
* Mol
China
* LanZhou
Finland
* Posiva Oy
* Onkalo
Germany
* Gorleben
* Ahaus
Japan
* Mizunami
* Rokkasho
* Mutsu
Sweden
* Aspo
* Osthammar
Switzerland
* Zwilag
* Grimsel
United Kingdom
* Sellafield
There are another dozen or so sites that are "soon to open", but given the experience of Yucca Mtn they should not be considered until they have begun to accept nuclear waste.
You have to love the thinly veiled ad hominem attacks against me, huh.
Yep.
I've noticed in past posts that AC doesn't let fact-checking doesn't get in the way of a good story.
 Not reassured at all. Thinking there is not one person out there willing to tell the truth.
"...not one person out there is willing to tell the truth." is bumblebee telling the truth? but then there is one person telling the truth. but then bumblebee isn't telling the truth while telling the truth, so there isn't one person out there who isn't not telling the truth.
my brain hurts.
This was an episode of original Star Trek, I believe. Captain Kirk lies, but if Captain Kirk lies when he tells me we're going to hit that asteroid, he's got to be lieing, but I can see the asteroid..yadda yadda yadda.
There many variations of the classic logic puzzles involving liars and truth tellers. One of my favorites says, "You are locked in a room with two doors. One door leads to freedom, the other to certain death. You don't know which is which. You have two companions with you in the room, one each who either always tells the truth or always lies, but you don't know which. Your companions know which is the safe door, and you will be allowed to ask one of them exactly one question. What question do you ask?"
Then of course, there are the politicians. Lying liars, one and all. Ask a politican what is safe, then do the opposite.
Re the locked room puzzle, you ask either companion what door the other one will say is the safe door, then you open the other door. With politicians, it gets trickier..
It is interesting to me that they're only just now saying what most intelligent adults had already concluded many days before: There was a meltdown and the land around the plant could very well be uninhabitable for generations. With as much understating has been done so far, I can't help thinking it's worse still than they're owning up to now.
And we have a winner! Congrats, Hal.
It will be months, if not a year, before they can really assess the full extent of the damage in and around Fukushima.
BumbleBee, if no one is telling the truth, how can you know that to be the case? Do you know the truth? If that is the case, please let us know. If you even have evidence that people are not telling the truth, could you post it or refer to it somewhere?
Ms. Winslet, perhaps people who state their nuclear energy facilities are safe are incorrect, but they are not logically incorrect.
Some people logically use big words to logically make themselves sound logically smarter than they logically are, logically speaking.
That was a good one Aceman. Mr. Spock couldn't have said it any better.
Gendo,
Are you Japanese? Just curious.
Nope.
I just like the diabolical mastermind character Gendo Ikari from the Neon Genesis Evangelion Japanimation.
That sort of came to be over time as my friends who also like the NGE series, tended to compare me to him a lot. I decided years ago not to fight it.
I think the article about the couple living at the radioactive lake, eating radioactive fish and veggys perty much sums up my input at this time!
The thing that I observed regarding this article is that the couple was in their 70's. Even if the radioactive fish etc. they were consuming were having an effect on these people they probably didn't live long enough to experience the harm that this would probably cause... I would guess that they also didn't live long enough for anyone to document the harmful effects that living off of a radioactive diet would have on them. The bottom line is that living in a post radioactive ecosystem is ridiculous and should not be done. I'm not sure if the above article about the couple is conveying the message that living in radioactive land is 'just fine'. It kind of seems that it is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Radiation is extremely harmful to living tissue. They way we are designed, our skin stops a good deal of the natural raiation we encounter. Consuming radioactive food bypasses the skin (obviously). However, your body cannot tell the difference between radioactive elements and non-radioactive elements. Chemically speaking, they are the same. This means that radioactive iodine or calcium (for instance) would be put into the structure of your body, where it can do tremendous cumulative damage.
But if you're already 70 years old, that "cumulative damage" of even medium levels of radiation isn't likely to change your overall health outlook and life prospects very much, so don't bother packing up and moving.
On the other hand, if you have children, or are planning to, get outta there.
It's pretty simple.
The fact they're suggesting this as a possible lifestyle choice for some in the future is really indicative of just how bad things are at Fukushima Daishi.
I suggest that in three years, while the clean up of the Tsunami continues, everyone will look back and realize the radiation scare was mostly "HYPE".
THX: No one has suggested anything as a "possible lifestyle choice" in Fukushima.
Yes, it is too soon to know, but the kind of speculation that is wholey appropriate in scientific journals can be needlessly sensational on a general-interest news site, where few people have the knowledge or experience to interpret data or estimate risks accurately.
As serious as it is, the disaster at the Fukishima Daiichi Plant is not in the same category as Chernobyl. There has been no explosion and fire of the fuel rods themselves, the event that led to the release of huge amounts of cesium, plutonium, and other long-lived radioactive isotopes in the Ukraine. According to data collected so far, there are some radioactive hot spots, especially to the northwest of the plant, and those will need to be decontaminated. Yet the data that has been highlighted by the IAEA -- at least so far -- does not support the frightening notion that large portions of the Fukishima area will need to be permanently abandoned.
While some will argue that there is no "safe" level of radiation or fixed threshold of danger, experience with previous disasters has shown that the population and even the experts themselves have tended to seriously over estimate the negative effects of radiation. Near Chernobyl, for example, the elderly who were permitted to remain behind had better health outcomes than those elderly who were forced to relocate. Some scientists have observed that fear and stress brought on by the disaster have had much more serious consequences than any known exposure to radiation.
I don't mean to suggest that the Japanese aren't facing a daunting task. I am only cautioning that we should wait for accurate radiological surveys of the area, keeping in mind that the most prevalant contaminant, the short-lived radioactive iodine, will be gone from the area within months.
Well stated, Mike.
 I am concerned! The Japan current dumps this stuff into a huge biomass that eventually ends up in Alaska and B.C. Canada. The fuel rods thousands of tons are conservatively 40% CS137 acts like potassium in all life. 30 year half-life means its 300 years to go away. Worst case? Pacific, Kill the Pacific. Diminished sea life - no food. Does the world have enough food now?
 No Insurance company will insure reactors.  Japan's reactors were built with a 30 year design life and operated for 40. Can a financially strapped Japan insure the world for this? If we do Nuclear it needs to be done much better!  Â
And ratio wise, it's not even comparable to one atom in a 5 gallon bucket of water.
and if C sheen would of only smoked 3.5 gms instead of 7...cause that is the way he rolled......it still would of been a cyclic chn compound....whats up here gendoikari?? you on a spin campaign? One fast nuetron is still one fast nuetron is it not?...statistically either one of us could hit the lotto tomorrow, but have we?...still one fast nuetron is ONE FAST NUETRON...which, sadly is one to many fast nuetrons...all the same...I am pro nuclear, BUT...we gotta take a look around...we gotta add up the risks....we gotta think in the long term....spinning an obvious diasaster is in no way going to help get any new permits, sorry about that but that is the REAL fact. This ain't oil dispersion, which is more oughta sight outta mind, you really are talking radionuclide dispersion...call it dilution if you must, but the fact is on small Po atom is deadly....you have NO garuntees that any given fast, moderate or slow nuetron is or is not going to strike any other atom "dispersed" or not and fissile it into any number of possible daugter products, sure the possibilty of a heavy element, say for instance mercury, being within the cross section of any "wild" radioactive products in the open environment is non quantifiable, BUT I can't rule it in and YOU can't rule it OUT!!!...so why don't you let the people of the world, by the world and for the world decide if THEY wan't nuclear power...go sit over by one of the many waste heaps and wait while all the REST of the world decides if the risk is really worth the ugliness of it all, Sorry you may not get the type 4 permit for that new pretty reactor you was countin' on...those is the breaks ya get with the risks ye take...chum....
Max Headroom I am concerned too. I am not a scientist, but I do know that there are an infinite number of variables that are involved in this radioactive equation. I think that the best scientists in the world are probably all aware of this. I learned as a child in elementary school that the accepted science of today will be outdated one hundred years from now. At one time the 'best minds' in our world all believed that life could come from non life. They would point to a rotten piece of meat that would 'suddenly' sprout life in the form of maggots to prove their points. It seems ridiculous looking back that anyone would think that way. The point I am trying to make is that much of what we think we know about radiation and it's effect on the environment will probably be pointed at and laughed at by future schools of scientific thought.
Ray, just read all of my posts concerning nuclear power since March 11th. I think you'll find that we largely agree. Safety is a big concern, especially with all water cooled reactor designs. Personally I'd prefer no more water based designs ever get built, but you and I are fighting big time corporate lobbyists on Capitol Hill.
I may be the mastermind INTJ who scores well within 5% of the middle on all four categories (literally that one in a million personality type), but it's beyond my capability to completely re-explain my position every single day around here.
There's way more radioactive material being pumped out of the tops of coal burning smoke stacks and being stored up in coal ash deposits right here at home than there is being currently being released into the oceans off Japan. If you want to worry, worry about that. Here's a couple of lnks:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Ray I'm not if you're completely high or incredibly stupid. Ratio to surrounding volume is very important when it comes to both poisonous substances and radioactive substances. Example. Arsenic is very bad for you and will cause all sorts of health problems. 1 atom in 5 gallons of water won't do squat to you and seeing as the limit allowed in drinking water is 10 parts per billion. Same thing with radioactive substances and stray neutrons. One atom of a radioactive substance in your body for every 5 gallons of water you drink won't effect you at all. One neutron flying around isn't going to do anything to you. If it did, then you would be dead thousands of times over due to the radiation exposure you receive from natural radiation sources already present in your body and your environment. Uh oh, better watch out for those stray neutrons coming from the small amount of radioactive radon in your home.
Finally, no... one small Po atom isn't deadly nor will it cause any health concerns. If it was, everyone that has ever breathed in any form of smoke, first or second hand, would be dead right now. Radioactive isotopes are only dangerous when you have high concentrations of them. Otherwise their effect is far to small to even measure against background radiation let alone die from it....
When flying frogs with leather like wings and feathered eybrows wink at us, we will know we're deep in the arms of the burning pit.
Just so long as they don't start poking me in the butt with their tiny tridents...
It's about time this issue has been addressed. I think that people in the west have this attitude that they could never experience a Chernobyl type dead zone happening in their country because their designs are so vastly superior. Sadly, it appears that a sizable chunk of an already small country will become another Pripyat/Chernobyl.
These were primitive Gen II reactors.
they could have been the most modern reactors on earth...a leak is stil a leak.
sebastianmilehigh: how did you jump from the article's "at worst" to "appears...will"?
The leak wouldn't have happened if a tsunami hadn't destroyed the backup cooling systems, thereby causing this entire mess.
As I've repeatedly said, building these power plants right at sea level along an oceanic coastline is an inherently bad idea.
radiation is not the ultimate problem. a whole host of new Godzillas will mutate from small lizards aroung the area and will kill far more people that the tsunami. folks will make cell phone videos of the beasts eating people and they will go viral on youtube, gross everybody out worldwide and result in censorship of the internet.
Don't forget the zombies. The zombies will be mayhem.
From this we should learn something about the issues with nuclear power. The potential problems range from severe to manageable. What we have learned here is that 3 mile island is an example of what will happen when you build reactors. Chernobyl is a example of what could happen. Japan has now shown us what will probably happen.
Astute observations..
Michael M.: "3 mile island is an example of what will happen when you build reactors" Does this imply that all reactors eventually undergo such accidents?
"Japan has now shown us what will probably happen." Does this imply that all reactors have a good chance of being battered with tsunami or earthquakes?
It appears everyone is on top of this incident with Japan allowing international experts to work on the short and long term resolutions. Very, very close and long term monitoring of the radioactive material in the envoronment is crucial for best results.
I'm checking my appetite for irradiated sushi.
Probably 25,000 people were killed by an earthquake and tsunami because they chose to live in a high risk area, and you can hear a few faint voices questioning the wisdom of rebuilding in the same area.
In the 60 years that nuclear power has been in use, less people have provably died as a result of radiation from a nuclear plant than have died on U.S. highways in any given month, yet half the public thinks we should stop using nuclear energy altogether.
Years of suffering from cancer or sudden death? hum? Do I have to choose..
hello bobljay!
The Chemo will cause clots in your lungs or a stroke, you will expire from this before the cancer gets you.
This is a symptom of innumeracy. People are extremely afraid of things that are unlikely to happen and ignore risks that are more likely, comparably, to kill or maim them. A child is in more danger, by orders of magnitude, crossing the street in a school zone than from radiation. The general public is in more danger from a chemical spill or plant accident, Bhopal anyone, than radiation from a nuclear plant.
We need a source of abundant reliable energy and until they get fusion figured out, nuclear is it. The sun does not always shine. The wind doesn't always blow. Orbital stations beaming down power are still a dream. Think of one of them becoming misaligned near a populated area, that is scary. These technologies have their place but are not yet ready for primetime.
The heavily polluting ways of producing power must be curtailed. So unless somebody wants to cut the human population to "sustainable" levels, at this time, nuclear is it.
I can just see it now...
"Ziss is Doktor Doom! Vee haf taken ovah zee space based power transmeession satellites. Eef you do not eemediately deeposit Ten Beellion dollars... hunh? Vaht?... Oh, ahem... Ten Treellion dollars..."
Innumeracy indeed.
I guarantee that if you have the courage and tenacity to read Dr. Helen Caldicot's @2006 book entitled Nuclear Power is not the Answer, with an open mind, you could not possibly support nuclear power. As simply as I can put it in a small blog - It is extremely expensive using taxpayer subsidies, uranium mining is very hazardous and a finite resource. Fossil fuels are used to extract uranium. (So much for helping global warming). By-product Plutonium is one of the most toxic substances on earth. Each reactor could produce several atomic bombs from the 500lbs of plutonium left each year from a 1000 megaton reactor. All nuclear plants are allowed periodic releases of radioactive air, there is no safe repository for spent fuel, reactors are highly vulnerable to terrorists, one melt-down could destroy thousands of acres for half a million years. Costs for an earthquake proof reactor are prohibitive at 9 on the Richter scale. (Sorry Japan) Any true meltdown could induce the death of thousands, some expiring slowly and painfully from radiation sickness, various cancers, deformities and genetic disease. There are over 100 operating reactors in the U.S. with a very long list of various accidents. That is all for now
"I guarantee that if you have the courage and tenacity to read Dr. Helen Caldicot's @2006 book entitled Nuclear Power is not the Answer, with an open mind, you could not possibly support nuclear power."
Not after reading George Monbiot's essay on Dr. Caldicot and her book in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
The bullet point quoting David Brenner is enlightening. Brenner: "Meanwhile, researchers should focus more study on the basic mechanisms by which low doses of radiation cause cancer."
There is evidence to suggest that low doses of radiation actually reduce the likelihood of cancer developing. This hypothesis is known as hormesis.
The posts of GendoIkari are appreciated.
An asteroid could impact on a nuclear power plant and scatter radioactive materials. However, the big story would be the asteroid impact.
A 20-megaton hydrogen bomb could be exploded at a nuclear power plant and scatter the site's radioactive material. However, the big story would be the hydrogen bomb explosion.
A tsunami has resulted in 28,000 missing and dead, $300 billion in damage, and has lead to three nuclear power reactors experiencing partial meltdowns with radioactive materials being released. However, the big story is the overall tsunami damage, not the release of radioactive materials.
Watch for mutants! Godzilla II will have a very interesting character!
fill our deserts with wind and solar, no more problems for electric production. and hydro electric damns if we haven't utilized all areas they can safely be implemented in. any rebuttals to that?
thel33tone: please point out where the deserts are in Japan.
i didnt mean there. but there probably is going to be one soon. :-( they could go with wind turbines even underwater ones. my point more cocerning the united states because its what im more familiar with, we have whole states that are practically desolate compared with the amount of people to how big they really are so all you need is like just a few hundred square miles out in the middle of no where that its windy most of the time and your set. do that in about 3 or four areas in the US and you have to be getting much closer to a better cleaner energy grid as a whole. psss... i know where its always windy! on a mountain or near the beach!
Only one rebuttal:
It's not polite to use profanity on the Newsvine.
cant we also make underwater wind turbines? use the ocean currents? there are so many choices that are non polluting renewable and not dangerous. why are we still even talking about oil and nuclear? it doesnt make sense. wind water solar. captain planet lol. tire pyrolisys is good too for where home heating oil is needed. algae for diesel vehicles. im wasting my breath but its fun.
wish it were that easy, the issues with all fuels have been covered in depth, it begs the point that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction...needed are surely fusion...cold or hot...superconductor transmission lines, multi band gap photonic materials...etc...some things already exist but, for instance high capacity solar cells, toxic and rare materials, or turbines, harmonics and in the case of underwater, mounding....the list really goes on.....we live in an endothermic universe...not exothermic...funding and supporting basic research, be it by the big universities or conglomorates OR by the little individuals patiently working away in their garages and basements..is the key....thrashing them into some sort of demand based expectations will not work.....like I said before, we gotta take a look around. We have lots of silicone and carbon and oxygen....maybe for the rarer stuff we gotta go elsewhere...I am certain that in man's future, we will bring hydrocarbons back from titan by the barge...not saying it's an intelligent thing to do...just an obvious thing....let the independants start looking for the non obvious, thats how you got A.C. thats how you got lightbulbs, that's how you got transfusions...etc...etc...etc...
What would be the fuel for such a space mission? What would be it's costs? What would be the cost per "barge" of "hydrocarbons" transported back to Earth? How would these hydrocarbons be harvested/mined/drilled/pumped/whatever into "barges" on the surface of Titan and how would these "barges" be launched from Titan for transport back to Earth? How would the "hydrocarbons" be downloaded to Earth for consumption on the surface? (I'm assuming that's the eventual destination in your scenario). Many questions with not so "obvious" answers.
Pardon the simplicity but, apart from expense, why can't we send nuclear waste material to the Sun?
A guess, completely off the top of my head, but perhaps the accident rate with rockets meant to be shot into space is so high that we could expect atmospheric explosions of the material on its way to the sun every couple of years?
Bloody hell, that would not be nice!
The expense would be extremely probibitive. You are talking in the neighborhood of $10,000.00 per pound. Considering the containment requirements, you could effectively double the total mass of radioactive waste at the Fukoshimo complex.
This should be a great incentive to stop breeding and cut the population in half. This should be the goal of all countries. Overpopulation and the resulting contamination and destruction of natural resources must stop or we are all doomed.
The population of Japan has been falling for quite some time now.
Tell it to the Muslims, who average 8 children to a family; and the Hispanics, who average 5 to a family.
appletoad, I agree with you that there needs to be a limit on family size...One wife to each man...and I think two children should be the max...then a vasectomy, or tubes tied, possibly both, should be mandatory (both which can be reversed, in the case of a child's death); unless, of course, in the case of giving a child up for adoption to a childless couple; which would probably always be female children. Most men want a male child to continue the family name; while childless couples usually don't care about such things, they just want a child to love, and raise as their own.
Appletoad and Marie Pierce, you should watch the movie 'Idiocracy'. It's kind of ridiculous, but it brings up some very interesting points to ponder. This point comes to mind in particular: The only people in society who will adhere to your ideas for bringing the population down are going to be 'model citizen' types. They will not breed until it's a safe and financially sound decision to do so. Meanwhile the uneducated masses who just don't care about adhering to societal standards will do as they please. They will breed and breed. Eventually the 'smart' people of society will be overrun and ousted by the resulting population boom that is caused by the irresponsible and uneducated. Eventually the world will be completely populated by 'idiots'. It may sound crazy..., but a wise man once said, "We are only as strong as our weakest link". Could this age old addage apply to the world as a whole???
Marie, picking on Muslims and Hispanics is simplistic thinking at best. China and India alone hold 37% of the world's population. The US comes in a distant third with about 4.5% of the world's population. Mexico is 11th on the list with about 1.6%, and predominantly Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are 17th, 39th, and 42nd, respectively, with population percentages of 1% or far less. Japan is 10th, by the way, with 1.8% of the world's population.
Marie, if you think a little before you post, you might come off as a little less hateful. At first glance, your post seemed to imply that people who can have children want them primarily to "continue the family name," while it is only those who don't care about continuing the family name that actually want to love their (hypothetical) child(ren). However, what it actually implies is that, before they have children, couples want to love the first child (or children, if twins) but that, upon birth, the men in the couples lose their desire to love and simply want the kid to not die if it's male or simply do not love it and want to try again for a male child. (I guess women's desires don't much matter.)
If you take a look at prejudice through the years, you'll find that usually (not always) the poor and sufferers of discrimination (primarily economic) are the ones said to be fond of large families.
Finally, what is the source of your statistics? In Britain, for example, people identifying themselves as Muslim do, indeed, have larger households than those identifying themselves as Christian (or any other group), but there were still fewer than 4 members as a mean (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=961). (In searching, I did find an extremist Christian website that noted the statistics you did, but the article was full of incorrect mathematical reasoning, so I discounted it.)
Uhh... Mormans?
And in response to the original post, if we don't get ahead of the evolution of anti-biotic resistant strains of TB and other highly infectious diseases, political will may not be necessary. Nature will take care of the overpopulation problem for us. I hope you have a strong immune system.
Not assured. The economic and environmental impact will be felt for years. And this is still not resolved, with no end in sight. The end solution may be to quarantine that land area around the reactors, which will put Japan in an economic strugle for resources. They will need outside assistance for years which will effect the entire globe's supply chain.
The environmental factor is yet to be seen, but food shortages can become an issue depending on how long it takes to get the radiation output under control. As of right now certain migratory fish, such as Tuna, are being affected and need to be studied. With the amount of people in the world, this can become a huge problem.
The movie "Gojira" was an allegory about the dangers of the atomic (Nuclear) age. When it was made in the early 1950's the Japanese were the only people on earth to experience large scale atomic destruction and radiation as the result of the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Most of us know "Gojira" by the it's English title "Godzilla" which, with some fancy additional inserts for western audiences, starred Raymond Burr as a US Newspaperman witnessing and narrating the destruction of Tokyo.
I'm sure some enterprising Japanese screen writer is working on an update of "Gojira" in the wake of the Fukushima disaster as they dump millions of gallons of radioactive water into the sea. Who knows what will rise out of the polluted ocean this time?
Too bad we didn't heed the warning to be found in "Gojira". I wonder if anyone is listening now?
I'm not so sure that nuclear power really isn't the answer, but what I am sure of is that because some of these nuclear construction jobs going to the lowest bidder, and the serious lack of foresight and the ignoring of those that do have the foresight, we are just not ready to be operating these things, much less constructing them.
That, imho, is the only reason we shouldn't be using nuclear energy quite yet.