Why I Am Not Worried About Japans Nuclear Reactor

Submitted by: Tacos4Brkfst 5 years ago
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

Even when things are worse than "worst case scenario", they still arent as bad as the media would you to think it is.
There are 82 comments:
Male 2,402
Here is why this person is talking from lack of real-time iformation. If they had done their homework. BTW the workers are now ordered out and is now level 6 on a scale of 1 to 7.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fudgeushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287
0
Reply
Male 77
why wat huh?
0
Reply
Male 253
Aww, crap.
I forgot to capitalize a letter.
0
Reply
Male 253
Slotherder,
I was mistaken about the meaning of "a long time" with regards to half life of an isotope.
as isotopes go, hundreds of thousands of years is relatively short = dangerous (depending on type of radiation emitted).
In terms of human generations, hundreds of thounsands of years is relatively long, also potentially dangerous.

However, I still want my scientists to spend the lions share of their focus on the data, as long as they don`t lose clarity of the meaning in the report.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
vv LOL you must be new here I`m patronizing a patronizer. You`d see that if you read the comment directed to me. It`s easy to criticize someones knowledge on a subject when you yourself haven`t shown anything you know about it or for that matter what you dissagree with in what I posted.
0
Reply
Male 98
I don`t get it McGovern, people take a point so much better if you offer to them nicely, not forcing down their throats and patronising them.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
vv Oh yes ever so wise one and all knowing please do tell me how much smarter you think you are.Yes the plant was designed diffently does it make this occurance out of the question I doubt it. If it`s not so bad why has it not been habitable for 26 years? Tell me the all knowing nuclear messiah where`d you get your PHD in nuclear engineering?
0
Reply
Male 537
McGovern1981 really has no idea about Chernobyl. And should probably keep his mouth shut before he ends up looking like even more of an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 579
if you "tldr" this, you`re missing some good information. Take the time and realize that whatever media you are watching on tv is just a bunch of bs.. I still can`t believe that in this day and age people still get their news from infotainment. If it`s not shocking, it doesn`t bring advertisers. Learn to use news.google.com and read from multiple sources to try to distinguish the truth from "OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING! ADVERTISE HERE!"
0
Reply
Male 496
Did the people commenting here actually read the article, or just decide to fart BS out of their mouths?
0
Reply
Male 202
@McGovern1981
"Tell that to the city of Chernobyl not too bad??? It dosen`t look too good... "

That`s what any soviet city would look like if you abandoned it for 20 years. And the radiation leaking form the sarcophagus is not dangerous unless you expose yourself to it for several days.
There were several reason why the Chernobyl reactor exploded , it was an itinerantly dangerous type of reactor, the safety measures were switched off, it was poorly constructed even by soviet standards, it had no containment structure, they weren`t following safety protocol,
the man in charge was insane and no one dared him because they didn`t want to win the KGB surprise trip to a Siberian gulag.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@randomxnp
Tell that to the city of Chernobyl not too bad??? It dosen`t look too good...


I can belive some of you it worked?? it`s not bad??? You all do relize that a core is now exposed and leaking radiation right???
0
Reply
Female 3,001
grammar not as good as what you would hope it is.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
madest

Yes, but that was the Soviet authorities, and the lies, denials and silences before that helped precipitate the new openness and fall of the USSR. Also Chernobyl really wasn`t as bad as the media try to tell you.
0
Reply
Male 202
@madest "Didn`t the authorities say the same thing before the Chernobyl meltdown?"

It`s unclear if the leaders in Moscow even knew about the meltdown until the next morning when they got a call form the Swedish saying that they detected large amounts of radiation and asked if everything was OK.

0
Reply
Male 7,378
Didn`t the authorities say the same thing before the Chernobyl meltdown?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@PierreJeanFR

"The problem is when it goes wrong the consequences are beyond tragic at a very long term"

The consequences for fossil fuel burning are pretty tragic when it goes RIGHT.

The smoke from all the coal-fired power stations is shortening lives every single day. You just don`t think about it because it`s subtle and quietly happening in the background.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
Nuclear energy is not and will never be 100% safe.
The problem is when it goes wrong the consequences are beyond tragic at a very long term
0
Reply
Male 988
"i have taken classes on nuclear reactors and i understand how they are built and how they work. this sumarry is very well done. and i was NEVER worried about this mess"
...And apparently never learned how to use the shift key the ENTIRE time.
0
Reply
Male 159
This guy is talking tosh, he`s knowledgeable but self deluding. It is NOT under control, there IS radiation leak, the leaks are ALREADY over the harmful limit. Rods are very likely melting right now as water is boiling off faster than they can pump it in. This isn`t over and it will get worse.
0
Reply
Male 86
I`m going to breakdown what this article is trying to say, even more. Basically, even if the reactor is to "meltdown" all of the radioactivity will be contained and everyone will be perfectly fine.

I noticed in some of the earlier comment people still seam scared after reading the article.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
i have taken classes on nuclear reactors and i understand how they are built and how they work. this sumarry is very well done. and i was NEVER worried about this mess
0
Reply
Male 86
@jadoig, the hydrogen buildup explosion didn`t result in any of the radioactive core contanements being released into the atmosphere like that of the explosion at chernobyl. So no, this guy isn`t bunk. The media is definitely over-hyping this situation. The Japanese really made great reactors, the reason why chernobyl ended up being so bad because the russian engineers were pressured by time constraints set forth by their government because they were trying to catchup in the nuclear race in the cold war. Nearly none of those rector types are in use nowadays. Nuclear energy really is safe.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]He mentions how the japanese reactors haven`t and will not have a chernobyl like explosion...except they did.[/quote]

Except they didn`t. People would have noticed if they had. It would have been tripping alarms all over the place and I don`t just mean in Japan.

[quote]All four of them blew from hydrogen buildup from seawater didn`t they?[/quote]

No, they didn`t. One of them had a hydrogen explosion *outside the containment* from superheated water.

[quote]So this guy is bunk?[/quote]

No.
0
Reply
Male 434
He mentions how the japanese reactors haven`t and will not have a chernobyl like explosion...except they did. All four of them blew from hydrogen buildup from seawater didn`t they? So this guy is bunk?
0
Reply
Female 15
very educational :)
0
Reply
Female 105
I was interested to hear a new opinion other than the news` until I saw the page was ridiculously long.
0
Reply
Male 586
TLDR
0
Reply
Male 251
workable sollution.***
0
Reply
Male 251
Tacos4Brkfst: "Most opponents are not aware that `nuclear waste` is not waste, but unprocessed fuel for a different type of reactor. Its not a trivial process, but it seems to be one thing that France is good at."

--Agreed. I hope I did not give the impression that I am an outright opponent to nuclear power, because I am not. I simply want to see policy makers have a reliable plan in place before they continue pushing for more plants. The problem with nuclear fuel recycling is also feasibility. It`s not that we can`t do it, it`s that it`s so damned expensive. It takes away one of the greatest draws that nuclear power has. Even though nuclear power has enormous start-up costs, it`s relatively cheap to maintain, provided there is an adequate source of water. Aside for all that, saying "nuclear waste is not waste" is not true. There`s still a hefty amount of waste to take care of after the recycling, just considerably less, to which we have no workabl
0
Reply
Male 251
Lardcarcass: "You want scientist or an english major?"

--Well, I`ve studied ecology for four years, does that count? I`m also a science geek in lots of other fields. Admittedly, my writing skills leave quite a lot to be desired, but I still like to at least put forth an effort when I take the time to put my thoughts out there. The effort expended does decrease exponentially on a beer-to-beer ratio, though.

"How dangerous is a radioactive isotope with a half or hundreds of thousands of years?"

--That all depends on whether or not it is contained and/or dissolved, which in turn depends on how well the containment techniques have been thought-out (including storage) as well as to what degree the radioactive components of the final solution remain active. Some solutions help to absorb the radioactivity, but (to my knowledge) most of those solutions are in-and-of themselves highly toxic, adding yet another layer of problems.

0
Reply
Male 620
@Slotherder,
Most opponents are not aware that `nuclear waste` is not waste, but unprocessed fuel for a different type of reactor. Its not a trivial process, but it seems to be one thing that France is good at.

Nuclear fuel cycle
Nuclear Reprocessing

Yucca mountain is a very poor solution
Leaving spent fuel scattered all over the country in pools at reactor sites is NOT a solution.
Building more reactors, while phasing out older generation reactors, really is a very viable solution.


Low level radioactive waste is a different issue, but still easily manageable when you compare it to radioactive ash pools that coal plants leave behind..
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"You want a scientist or an english major?"

Yeah, its not like nuclear physics requires accuracy and attention to detail or anything........
0
Reply
Male 4,014
He is probably correct about one thing, however. Immediately following the earthquake, the control rods were likely fully inserted, stopping the chain reaction, leaving the rods to smolder for millenia.
0
Reply
Male 1,744
sad part is 99% of people who read this will still be too stupid to believe it and will still think "ZOMG NUKLAR POWAR IZ SO BAAAD WE`S ALL GONNA DIE".
0
Reply
Male 253
How dangerous is an isotope with a half life or hundreds of thousands of years?
0
Reply
Male 253
You want a scientist or an english major?

0
Reply
Male 15,510
Well isnt that a relief
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Slotherder - you are on to it. The author blithely says "oh, they have facilities to clean the now radioactive sea-water they pumped in as EMERGENCY PLAN B, don`t worry about that," when it was actually more like "PLAN D" if you follow the chronology. I mean, the people who built a nuclear power plant on low-lying terrain NEXT TO WATER couldn`t foresee a tsunami that would flood backup generators? Are you telling me that all they had to do was put the generators on the roof (or any raised structure) and this whole mess would have been avoided????? And they didn`t do that? And then their emergency power trucks didn`t have the right plugs?

NOW I`m supposed to feel good knowing that at least they are pumping in seawater........Sorry, I don`t, because I lost faith when the emergency trucks didn`t have the right f*cking plugs. All those emergency drills, no one tried the f*cking socket????
0
Reply
Male 4,014
" There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage."

Big assumption - do we know they didn`t cycle it back into the environment in a panic to avoid a complete meltdown?

Also - look, I`m all for knowledgeable reassurance. But if you can`t avoid basic grammatical errors ("build" when he meant "built," for example), I lose the slightest bit of faith in his physicist abilities.

You can`t spell-check your reassurance article, but you want me to trust you to calculate how much radioactive seawater is "safe?"
0
Reply
Male 251
Taking into account that the site publishing this article has the primary stance of advocating for the use of nuclear power, it`s a good idea to set your mental filter on high. Nuclear power has its problems. Of course, all power generation has its share of problems, but it`s a matter of weighing out the pros and cons. A site which does not list any cons is obviously biased. The biggest con to nuclear power is the question of: what do we do with the waste? We still have no consensus on this issue, and nothing points to a feasible solution anytime soon, even though we have already spent a huge sum of $ on a storage facility that we can not use. Most proponents of nuclear power ignore this issue and suggest that we build more plants ASAP while harping on the mainly infrastructure-related shortfalls of notable renewable possibilities. Infrastructure is easier to take care of than radioactive isotopes with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years.
0
Reply
Male 86
Good article. Also bit biased and not 100% correct, so read the comments on that page as well.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Well isnt that a relief
0
Reply
Male 674
Handys003...nice analogy with the view from the boat thing. General human perception is contrived from what we want and expect not what is actual. Everything about the human race is “today” with very little thought of our brief past and limited future here on this wonderful planet.
0
Reply
Female 134
As a student with a fairly sound chemical background (I`m only in Organic Chemistry right now though, so I still have more to learn), I found that I agreed with the basics of the chemistry in the article. I`m also impressed in the Engineering that went into this plant that is withstood a 8.9 earthquake. I appreciate the chance to read an article from a scientific biased standpoint to the usual media bias, and I know not everyone will view the incident as I do. Its just that my view may conflict with their morals, so they will not look at their morals as wrong, but at my view as wrong.
But I`m getting a bit philosophical now, so I will stop.
0
Reply
Male 620
"How about the energy spent harvesting, transporting, handling, packaging IT`S fuel source? NOT to mention IT`S disposal! "
Oh you mean energy that can be created using nuclear power?

"Do you have any idea how large a carbon footprint a nuclear reactor has"
Okay, you got me there! Just like a Prius, other `green` tech has a carbon footprint when you build it too. Its true. If only a Prius would last 40 years.

Still doesn`t change the fact that heat is a nuclear reactors #1 pollution, it can be pretty destructive for local environments.


I`m sorry i don`t have enough sock puppets in my cupboards to explain these things to you.
0
Reply
Male 591
Japanese TV is now reporting that the secondary containment vessel (that surrounds the core) at reactor 2 has been breached and water is leaking out. This is the reactor that they have struggled with all day to keep the fuel rods covered in water. And there has now been a third explosion.

I appreciated the easily understood layman`s description of nuclear power in the linked article, but the situation in Japan seems to be getting worse, not better.
0
Reply
Male 5
best iab article ive read in months. good jorb
0
Reply
Male 2,402
Even though this guy may be a credible source. He is still talking from a point of view. He does not have the pertinent facts of the situation there at real time. He is only relating from knowledge of how the reactor works, but to say the radiation is not dangerous is speculating on such lack of what is happening there.

It`s like an observer from a boat looking at a tribal dance on shore from a distance. He may come to the conclusion that it`s a war dance and stay away yet it might be a dance relating toward an adventure story. He does not have pertinent information to reach a sound conclusion.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
The fact remains a good deal of people died or are going to die because of radiation exposure. Thousands of families have been evacuated from their homes, for what is estimated to be months because of the nuclear reactors.

I am not for flushing the baby with the bathwater, when it comes to nuclear power, but I am for making advances before making it a primary power source - like Japan did.

I have nothing but sympathy for those poor people.
0
Reply
Female 382
TL, DR
0
Reply
Male 674
So what you are saying is,”the only pollution from a nuclear reactor, is thermal, like heat being radiated or exchanged?” That`s what you are trying to say, right? EPIC WRONG!

Do you have any idea how large a carbon footprint a nuclear reactor has? OMFG! I swear...all of you people must be idiots! How about the energy spent harvesting, transporting, handling, packaging IT`S fuel source? NOT to mention IT`S disposal!

You people need to get serious. I think the entire world needs to take a serious look at the environment that we occupy and the influence we have over it.

Also, all you people better stay in school or go back to school for communications!
0
Reply
Male 620
@r66tramp
Yeah what can I say, my lowest grades came from English class.

Anyways... Thermal pollution
0
Reply
Male 2,372
I feel more sorry for the poor insurance companies. They`re going to take a sh*t kicking. :-(
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Gerry1of1:

Large animals are a major source of pollution in the form of greenhouse gases. Horses are nowhere near as bad as cows, but they certainly aren`t pollution-free.

Also, horses were a very serious urban pollution problem in the 19th century.
0
Reply
Male 674
"a nuclear reactors #1 and only source of pollution"

SOURCE OF POLLUTION? WTF are YOU talking about?

Yo people of the inter-webs! Yee need to take grammar, writing, reading and comprehension classes STAT!
0
Reply
Male 97
Boooooooooring. Wake me when the zombies come.
0
Reply
Male 674
ANGILLION...with over fifty four hundred posts, you come on here and complain to IAB? Clearly, you are insane!
0
Reply
Male 620
@gerry

Do you even know what a nuclear reactors #1 and only source of pollution is under normal operation?

I`ll give you a hint - its not co2, unlike horses.
0
Reply
Male 37,888
@ 5Cats

the #1 Green Energy EVER was horsepower. Literally.

As in power from horses.
Their only polution was used as fertalizer.
The were fed with non-radioactive materials {grass}.
and were 100 useable when dead ... glue, jello, brushes etc
0
Reply
Male 674
"Japans nuclear reactor"
Like it was singular?

"Nuclear= #1 Green"
WTF! If that is green, I`d hate to see your shade of gray.

"Chernobel"
Like Nobel Prize? I don`t think so.

"dental x-rays VS nuclear power plants"
OMFG! What is wrong with people these days?

Straight up, you people are idiots! Some dude was just on BBC and said,"a melt down is just a melt down...no big deal...everybody will forget about it later when it is over."

YOU can ALL forget about it, I`m not going to.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
And IAB, I am not buying the excuse that it`s completely impossible for you to change your policy of deliberately and publically lying about what poeple have written, i.e. your deliberately stupid and deceitful censorship.

You just don`t care to do it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`m not buying it. I`m on the IAEA site pretty regularly these past couple of days. The IAEA isn`t using any language that would indicate we don`t have anything to worry about... In fact, the language they are using is very non-committal and gives no indication either way of the relative safety, or potential danger.[/quote]

It does give an indication, in a deliberately cold, factual, agenda-less way.

For example, the entry for 14 March, 2011, 04:00 CET states:

[quote]Japan´s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) has informed the IAEA that there has been an explosion at the Unit 3 reactor at the fudgeushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

The explosion occurred at 11:01 am local Japan time.

The IAEA is seeking further information on this development.[/quote]

The entry for 14 March 2011, 05:15 CET states:

[quote]Unit 3 is in a safe, cold shutdown.[/quote]

Which indicates that the explosion did no relevant da
0
Reply
Male 25,416
come on, who hasnt wanted super powers?
0
Reply
Male 1,399
BTW, your vulgarity filter here is retarded.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Most people`s knowledge of nuclear power, containment and radiation is at the "Duck and Cover" level of the 50`s.

You have nothing to worry about. Even sitting on top of the fudgeushima plant, you`d barely receive enough radiation to equal a dental x-ray.

I receive more radiation every year simply living at a high altitude in a state with Uranium in the ground.

The system worked. It worked. The system worked.
0
Reply
Female 2,764
good read
0
Reply
Male 36,299
Nuclear power is the #1 GREEN energy ever! Even Chernobel hasn`t changed that, and all this has done is prove how safe the power plants really are!
0
Reply
Male 620
oh, this article has been migrated to new location which is hosted and maintained by the MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering.

http://mitnse.com/

If you cant trust those guys....
0
Reply
Male 37,888

You can always go old school and make a fallout shelter


0
Reply
Male 620
Beardofzeus,

http://tinyurl.com/4f6y792
http://tinyurl.com/4b36z3v
http://tinyurl.com/qxyv24

Plenty of links in the wikipedia article to keep you reading for weeks.
0
Reply
Male 181
Whew! Finally an industry proponent with a pro-nuclear energy book to hawk who hasn`t seen or studied the incident he`s blogging on to tell me not to worry. I feel so much better.
0
Reply
Male 670
Brilliant article. More in-depth science please IAB!
I feel smarter already ^^
0
Reply
Male 620
" In fact, the language they are using is very non-committal and gives no indication either way of the relative safety, or potential danger. "

A valid voice of reason, osirisascend


But this is NOT another Chernobyl event nor will it escalate to one. This event should not be downplayed, its a serious incident, however, people need to drop the hysteria and learn the facts. Every person i have spoke to in the industry agrees, its not as bad as the media would like you to think.
0
Reply
Male 639
Why I am worried about Japan`s Nuclear Reactor

0
Reply
Male 633
Yeah, just like i`m almost pregnant! Dust off the bomb shelter cover. All those people in California that built bomb shelters in the 60`s might get to use them.
0
Reply
Male 37,888

It boils down to whether you want to wear a lead suit or Rad Your Nads !

I`m getting the suit.


0
Reply
Male 14,330
Ummm I`m still building my lead suit. Is this message also by the people who said they were venting the reactors and it`s only "slightly" raidoactive or they had just a "partial meltdown".That kinda sounds like partially dead some people in the surrounding continents may become slightly dead...
0
Reply
Male 3,057
Also, the information on the WNN site is TWO DAYS OLD.
0
Reply
Male 3,057
I`m not buying it. I`m on the IAEA site pretty regularly these past couple of days. The IAEA isn`t using any language that would indicate we don`t have anything to worry about... In fact, the language they are using is very non-committal and gives no indication either way of the relative safety, or potential danger.

The blog that is linked to here does a very thorough job of cherry-picking information... like someone whose job it is to downplay the potential danger.But you can look at the IAEA website yourself, and draw your own conclusion.
0
Reply
Male 1,244
tldr
0
Reply
Male 620
Link: Why I Am Not Worried About Japans Nuclear Reactor [Rate Link] - Even when things are worse than `worst case scenario`, they still arent as bad as the media would you to think it is.
0
Reply