Fukushima: how are things now?

« Older   Newer »
  Share  
FionaK
view post Posted on 11/3/2012, 10:20




http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2...utm_term=tweets

This is a piece in Al-Jazeera from a nuclear scientist who is concerned that we are not making decisions about nuclear power on a proper basis. It is typical of the quality of debate, in that much is implied and little is evidenced. It is essentially predicated on the idea that those who disagree with him are ill informed (though he does not explicitly single out those against nuclear solutions because he is careful to characterise "the debate" in that way; and that suggests both sides are equally ignorant. Nevertheless the thrust is clear)

This piece annoys me for its internal contradiction. It is a plea for better informed debate, yet he, a nuclear scientist, does nothing to inform us beyond easy platitudes. Maybe he is not able to because it is a news outlet and therefore not a proper platform for presenting information. But if that is so then why bother writing it at all? Where else is such a debate to be conducted if not in news outlets?

Bah!
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 8/5/2012, 06:30




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...wer-earthquakes

It seems that the problem at Fukushima is far from over
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 9/5/2012, 21:31




http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/fukus...-+Blog+Posts%29

Privatise the profit and socialise the loss works in Japan as well ...
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 6/7/2012, 17:22




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/0...ushima-disaster

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...-disaster-japan

There has been a report into the Fukushima disaster and there is now a controvery about its findings. It challenges the notion that this was primarily a natural disaster and it is being described as one "made in Japan". The thesis is that uniquely Japanese traits of obedience and deference led to inadequate safety measures.

Others argue that this is not a Japanese phenonemon but rather an example of "regulatory" capture: something which can be seen in many countries.

I honestly don't know, but I do think that "essentialism" is pretty much nonsense:and I do think that where there is neoclassical theory underpinning economic policy it does lead inevitably to regulatory capture.

According to some of the reports I have read the body of it talks of regulatory capture: but the summary from the chairman does not: and they also claim that that part of the report is different in Japanese and in English. Playing to the audience's prejudices, perhaps? Again I don't know.

 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 13/8/2012, 19:05




www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818#TWEET193889

Well it does not look as if the butterflies are ok. I do not know how significant these findings are but they are interesting
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 21/3/2013, 01:37




Last week there was a power blackout at Fukushima which caused vital cooling equipment to fail for nearly two days. We are told there was no danger because it would take about four days for the rods to overheat and release more radioactive material. But today it was reported that the cause of the shut down was a rat: it chewed through some cables, apparently. So much for hi-tech safety systems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/as...hima-plant.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/world/as...=tw-share&_r=1&
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 10/8/2013, 10:39




If you thought that the Fukishima plant was safe by now, because you have not heard much about it recently, you might want to think again. Radioactive water is leaking from the plant into the pacific. The government and Tepco initially denied this saying they had the water completely contained. Turns out that is not true. It is ok, according to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, because the amounts are such that it will be very dilute indeed by the time it reaches America. Shame about the Japanese coast and the Japanese fishing industry, though

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/...ens-livelihoods
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 20/8/2013, 18:16




300 tons of radioactive water has leaked into the ground from a water tank at Fukushima. This is "safe storage", designed to contain the problem for a significant period. That would be two years, so far. The half life is.....rather more than two years

www.theguardian.com/environment/vid...xic-water-video

As the spokesman in the video says they are leaking 5 years worth of safe dose every hour: and the safe dose we relaxed after the disaster,IIRC
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 1/9/2013, 10:40




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/201...ls-higher-japan

This is not getting any better. A radiation spike with no explanation of its origin. Workers exposed to doses of radiation far in excess of the permissable amount and without equipment to monitor their exposure for themselves.

QUOTE
The high radiation levels announced on Sunday highlighted the dangers facing thousands of workers as they attempt to contain, treat and store water safely, while preventing fuel assemblies damaged in the accident from going back into meltdown.

Japan's nuclear workers are allowed an annual accumulative radiation exposure of 50 millisieverts.

Tepco said radiation of 230 millisieverts an hour had been measured at another tank – up from 70 millisieverts last month. A third storage tank was emitting 70 millisieverts an hour, Tepco said. Radiation near a pipe connecting two other tanks had been measured at 230 millisieverts.

Tepco admitted recently that only two workers had initially been assigned to check more than 1,000 storage tanks on the site. Neither of the workers carried dosimeters to measure their exposure to radiation, and some inspections had not been properly recorded.

There is a tendency to blame Tepco, and that is fair enough. But it seems to me that there is no evidence anyone else would be doing any better. It is at least plausible that we cannot actually deal with this kind of disaster at all. The risk is low: the hazard is high and getting higher. That, for me, has always been the issue
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 3/9/2013, 18:25




http://www.theguardian.com/environment/201...fukushima-water

Apparently what we should be worrying about is whether Tokyo's prospects of getting to host the Olympic games will be harmed by the worries about Fukushima.

Never mind that the problem is getting worse and there is no credible plan. Never mind that they are going to spend a fortune building an ice wall to isolate the coolant water from the ground water though that is untested technology. Never mind that

QUOTE
The emergency measures announced on Tuesday do not address the wider problem created by the need to constantly cool the damaged reactors and the resulting buildup of contaminated water

For heaven's sake don't worry about the fact that
QUOTE
discharging treated water into the ocean is one option under consideration.

, or that this problem is expected to remain with us for 40 years, even on their own estimates

Nope. Biggest worry is that people might irrationally reject Tokyo's Olympic bid. <_<
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 1/9/2015, 12:34




http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2015/09...ukushima-report

A report on Fukushima, from the International Atomic Energy Authority. On the face of it it appears to suggest that Japanese regulation and risk analysis was not adequate. It may be that it was, and uniquely so. But ask yourself, do you know that your own nuclear plants have taken account of the possibilities the Japanese missed? If so, how do you know?

I have noticed that such reports after the event ALWAYS find things which could have been done better; things that were missed. I do not think that is odd at all: I think it is inevitable and shows the value of hindsight: nothing more

But with hazard of this magnitude we should recognise those human limitations and sometimes they should mean we just don't do it. That principle is established eg with germ warfare, so it is not unprecedented. Why not for nuclear?
 
Top
FionaK
view post Posted on 4/11/2015, 02:39




www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/03/fukushima-gets-a-lot-uglier/

Don't know the status of this source, but it is quoting a Japanese newspaper ( again I don't know how respectable it is) If this account is true, things appear to be getting worse, not better
 
Top
29 replies since 10/9/2011, 16:33   311 views
  Share