Fukushima: Myth of Safety, Reality of Geoscience 206
An anonymous reader writes "The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' has published a special Fukushima issue with interesting/deep/new pieces written by leading experts on the nuclear disaster in Japan. Fukushima: The myth of safety, the reality of geoscience, which shows that in the decades after the nuclear plant was built, the authorities discovered historical records that showed Fukushima was vulnerable to a giant tsunami, but they did nothing to protect the plant. But there's a globalized twist to the issue: The Bulletin has also translated these lengthy expert analyses of the disaster into Japanese. As Bulletin editor Mindy Kay Bricker explains: 'Those in genuine need of erudite analysis are, of course, those directly affected by the Fukushima disaster, the Japanese population. Stellar coverage by Western news outlets might win awards, but what is the point if those who most deserve the information never benefit from reading it?'"
Tokyo is being evacuated also (Score:0, Interesting)
Tokyo is being evacuated also. Well, just small parts of it for now but who knows how bad it could get because it's still leaking massive amounts of radiation (much like how the BP oil well is still leaking oil into the Gulf; why no news coverage?).
As always, both Tepco and the Japanese government have massively downplayed the actual severity of this thing. It's worse than Chernobyl. Much, much worse [alexanderhiggins.com].
It's funny to keep seeing all these "engineers" and Internet morons say this thing is safe and other bullshit since this started. Anyone could tell that the official reports were downplaying the severity because all of the real hard numbers we got went against what they were saying. I am pro nuclear power but Japan needs to take off the mask already and start working on real solutions because this is really bad. Maybe ask for help.
Re:Close them all (Score:4, Interesting)
The problems in Fukushima had jackshit to do with tsunamis, and a lot to do with incompetence, greed and political pressure, during plan construction, during operation and, finally, during the disastrous handling of the incident after the earthquake. Those problems are universal problems that tend to plague the nuclear sector everywhere, because many view it as prestigious, there are "national security" concerns, the orders are large and a lot of money is swapped under the table in deals that cut various corners, etc.
Since fission nuclear power, if done for safely and accounted for properly, is insanely expensive to begin with, and the costs multiply many times over in the case of a nuclear fuckup, coming up with better alternatives is not a bad idea.
Re:Still No Deaths From Radiation (Score:2, Interesting)
Well that remains to be seen. The Japanese population is currently eating last year's rice crop. The current year's harvest post Fukishima will not be on the market till next year. For what it is worth, the food regulation process in Japan mandates that any food that contains radioactive traces must be labeled as such. If the radioactivity has migrated via the underground water tables it may have contaminated many of this year's crops. IF Japan loses a significant portion of this year's rice crop which they will depend on next year to feed their population it could be really great for rice commodity speculators and very ugly for the indigenous population trying to responsibly feed their families in Japan.
I have a close friend who has lived there for several years. He is currently only a few hundred kilometers south of Fukishima. He states that the local prefectures are now hiring their own experts to evaluate the radiation levels in the air, water and soil because no one trusts the national government to be open and honest about what they know concerning radioactive exposure(s).
A little off your topic, but the cascading effects of this disaster remain to be seen.
A PhD Told Me (Score:2, Interesting)
..that nuclear reactors are complex systems, and therefore subject to chaotic behavior.. further, the culture of security does not breed increased response to threats, quite the opposite. Long periods of stable energy and profits lead predictably to cozy relationships with regulators and "asleep at the wheel" operators.. industry-wide! This was someone with no political axe in hand, simply advanced training in physics..
Re:The major lessons (Score:3, Interesting)
Nuclear is unsafe only if you don't make it safe
Bingo! We don't make it safe. And when we have problems, we either blame it on the press, or tell people that they are stupid, and make up excuses fro the accident.
A big hint to the pro-nuc's (which I am one) is that the accident at Fukishima is not a nuclear fault. This isn't an excuse - it's a fact. It is the fault of a stupid decision about tsunami heights - there have been several tsunami that would easily top their walls. Then their emergency generator plan was criminally inadequate. Locating the plant along a river above historical wave ingress and height, plus a 100 percent safety margin, and this disaster would never have happened. But it did happen.
The problem, safety wise, is that nuc energy is has a very high energy density. As energy density goes up, the consequences of release problems goes up. So even without radiation issues, a breach with that much energy involved is going to be very messy.
But the consequences end up being the same, whether it's "unsafe nuc", or stupid designs. We can design to contain that energy density. Will we?