Fukushima disaster.

[lajoswinkler]

Cesium is very similar to sodium. It gives water soluble salts, therefore Cs+ cation will flow free in the geochemical sense. In's less mobile when plants eat it because they tend to keep it for themselves. Most of the Cs-137 in Ukraine is in mushrooms and plants so they tick more on Geiger counters.

Remember the story about salting Carthage? Sodium is washed by the rain. If the ground is not situated above a poorly drained underground reservoir, but near the sea, sodium/cesium will eventually be washed away into the ocean and it's pretty much locked there. It can only be raised by aerosols, but ocean dillutes it effectively so no problem.

Strontium-90 is a bigger issue. It's similar to calcium. Animals lock calcium in bodies so they lock strontium as well. Bones produce blood, so Sr-90 induces leukaemia.

Strontium in nature grabs bicarbonate and sulfate anions and is turned into strontium carbonate and sulfate, poorly soluble salts analogue to chalk and gypsum. It takes a long, long time before rain washes it away because as soon Sr2+ is liberated, it will encounter other CO32- and SO42-. Winds also disperse strontium.

Fukushima didn't blow up its cores. There was no fire that lifted all the junk into the environment like at Chernobyl. The main product released out was I-131 so that accident is radiologically typical example of large disasters.

After one decade or less, people really should get back. Independent organizations should measure the levels of contamination and inform the residents on a monthly basis. If everything was ok, I wouldn't have issues with returning.

The problem is in the society that's uneducated and radiophobic and the government that didn't earn the respect and trust of people.

[Diche Bach]

I would say the problem is with a nuclear industry that tried to cut corners. You cannot blame lay people for being concerned. Not everyone is a physicist.

[drakesdoom]

“Decontamination in the true sense of the word is not being carried out,†said Tomoya Yamauchi, a professor of radiation physics at Kobe University. Yamauchi said he found that some decontaminated road surfaces in Fukushima had readings 18 times the target level because caesium had accumulated in cracks in the asphalt.

“I think the government recognizes that Fukushima cannot be returned to how it was.â€Â

18x times the target of 1/20 of a safe dose is still lower than safe dosage. Not great for your health but you will get run over before it is a problem.

[lajoswinkler]

I would say the problem is with a nuclear industry that tried to cut corners. You cannot blame lay people for being concerned. Not everyone is a physicist.

The level of information about nuclear physics that people living in the vicinity of such power plants (or reprocessing plants) have to know is really tolerable and just slightly above the general knowledge modern people should know if they went to a typical highschool and passed Physics.

Nobody is asking them to do calculations, but they should be able to understand the general principles so that they understand the warnings and recommendations. Unfortunatelly, people can't distinguish ionizing radiation from magic.

One of the examples modern people should know is not to be scared of statements such as "two times the normal level". I'm not talking explicitly about radioactive contamination. It can be heavy metals.

If "normal level" is orders of magnitude lower than the highest safe amount, then two times more is not dangerous. But people only hear what they want to hear, and that's because education system didn't taught them to think properly.

Example - radon. After heavy rainfall, concentration of radon (potent lung cancer inducer) in the air can be ten times the normal levels because rain pushes the accumulated gas from the underground up.

Ten times, twenty times, it varies greatly and it's normal. Does than mean we should panic? No. It's picocuries per litre and it lasts for a short time.

But if you scream about "TWENTY TIMES THE NORMAL LEVEL" to an uneducated folk who thinks radon = death, you can expect public fear.

So I think people should get better education, of course, but the ones living close to certain industries should be informed better by the people in charge.

Radioactive matter is so easy to detect. Most deadly chemicals are extremely tough to detect at low concentrations (when they're dangerous in the long run), but radioactive chemicals are "waving hands" by throwing particles, so even traces can be heard easily. There's like a hundred high energy rays in your room per second right now you aren't aware of. Some of them emanate from your computer, your body, the Sun, some ancient supernova...

[Diche Bach]

I think you are missing my point gentlemen. The plant should never have broke and led to irradiation of the area in the first place. If the nuclear power industry adhered assiduously in every case to whatever standards they need to adhere to make such accidents exceedingly rare, then the public wouldn't need to worry about it. Blaming the failure of the area to rejuvenate on the public for not understanding the numbers is honestly a bit insensitive and arrogant. I do honestly find it interesting to hear you arguing that "there is nothing to worry" about and I am incredulous about that; but that is a bit of a side issue really.

Whether the area really is perfectly safe for human inhabitation or not is largely irrelevant at this point. In the first place, life there was disrupted by the disaster at the plant. At least temporarily it was unsafe to live there. Moreover, even if it is objectively 100% as safe as it was previously, the vacancy alone has caused permanent damage to the local economy and social fabric and it will likely never recover. Add to that that there will likely always be a reluctance on the part of families, or businesses to relocate there; even if it is not the least bit 'dangerous' to human health from a radiation standpoint, the surrounding land has been blighted nonetheless.

The blame for that harm to Japan and the world lies not with the public but with TEPCO and perhaps more broadly with the Japanese nuclear power industry and government. Lets not detract from that important truth by pointing out that silly lay people don't know the difference between ionizing radiation and magic.

[drakesdoom]

Your right they did not adhere to the standards set for saftey, they exceeded them in every way, just slightly less than other plants in japan. What part of first time in all of recorded history never thought to even be possible to exist wave do you not understand?

[Seret]

The plant should never have broke and led to irradiation of the area in the first place. If the nuclear power industry adhered assiduously in every case to whatever standards they need to adhere to make such accidents exceedingly rare

It's not like the plant broke due to negligence on the part of the operators. It was hit by an epic scale tsunami, one of the most powerful destructive forces in nature. Entire towns were wiped out, over ten thousand people died. The plant actually weathered the original impact reasonably well and staggered on for quite a while before it got into trouble, it's just that its series of backups and safeguards were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the disaster. It would be nice if the backups had been able to cope, but we're talking about an extraordinary event here. Nothing can be designed to withstand any natural disaster, because occasionally Mother Nature will throw one at you that you just can't resist. There are limits to what risks are sensible to design to, in the case of the nuclear industry those limits are orders of magnitude higher than other industries.

Considered against the backdrop of the actual disaster, the incident at Fukushima was fairly small fry. The real issue was that the entire region had been utterly devastated by the tsunami. The release of radiation from Fukushima is expected to cause about 100 or so deaths over the years. That means it will account for about 1% additional casualties from the whole disaster.

[Diche Bach]

I think you are white washing things Seret. The fact that the plant was not actually much impacted by the Tsunami in the first place demonstrates that. It was flooding in the basement that led to the disaster as I understand it. I'm sure there are a lot more details to be dug up out there, but a quick, glimpse at what is considered the current consensus on the Wiki page for the disaster reveals that this was not likely an unavoidable result of the tsunami.

On 5 July 2012, the Japanese National Diet appointed The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC) submitted its inquiry report to the Japanese Diet.[23] The Commission found the nuclear disaster was "manmade", that the direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011.

The report also found that the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami. TEPCO, the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirementsâ€â€such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release.

The reports generally concluded that more adequate protection against tsunami and disaster preparation could have mitigated the disaster.[24]

Perhaps some have claimed "only 100 extra deaths" but others are not so optimistic.

There were no deaths caused by radiation exposure, while approximately 18,500 people died due to the earthquake and tsunami. Future cancer deaths from accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted by some agencies to be extremely low to none.[20][21] However, other researchers are less optimistic, with predictions that 25 times as many people in Fukushima area will develop thyroid cancer after the disaster compared to before: Professor Shinzo Kimura of Dokkyo Medical University in Japan, had been collecting radiation contamination data and studied the radiation exposure risks from Chernobyl. He was the first scientist on the ground in Fukushima after the disaster, keen to establish data independent of TEPCO and the government.[22]

Given that the disaster has been concluded by the investigatory body to have been "manmade" it should not be surprising if some 'experts' have found that "there is nothing to worry about," whereas others who are independent of TEPCO and the govt have predicted "25 times as many people in Fukushima area will develop thyroid cancer." It is a controversial projection, and naturally those whose malfeasance in the disaster are brought into question are likely to minimize the risks going forward. I would assert that their malfeasance which caused the disaster in the first place is a reasonable prima facie evidence to discount their claims, including claims that "the area is perfectly safe now."

Your right they did not adhere to the standards set for saftey, they exceeded them in every way, just slightly less than other plants in japan. What part of first time in all of recorded history never thought to even be possible to exist wave do you not understand?

Unless the wiki page has been vandalized, I think you are rather incorrect.

TEPCO admitted for the first time on October 12, 2012 that it had failed to take stronger measures to prevent disasters for fear of inviting lawsuits or protests against its nuclear plants.[26][27][28][29] There are no clear plans for decommissioning the plant, but there are estimates it will take at least thirty or forty years.

. . .

In 2007, TEPCO set up a department to supervise all its nuclear facilities, and until June 2011 its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the chief of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. An in-house study in 2008 pointed out that there was an immediate need to improve the protection of the power station from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 metres (33 ft). Department officials at the company's headquarters insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously.[68][verification needed] Yomiuri News paper reported [69] that Mr.Okamura of Active Fault and Earthquake Research Center urged TEPCO and Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency(NISA)to review their assumption on a height of possible tsunami based on earthquake occurred 1100 years ago but it was not seriously considered at that time. Bloomberg reported[70] that U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission warned a risk on losing emergency power 20 years ago(NUREG-1150)and NISA referred the report in 2004, no action, however to mitigate the risk was taken.

Just based on these facts, it seems pretty obvious that the blame for the harm done lies with TEPCO and/or the Japanese government to the extent that they were not imposing sufficient oversight on TEPCO.

Whether the area is now perfectly safe and the net effect of the disaster on human health will be negligible or great is of course debatable as such inferences are inherently limited by being projective. The reality remains to be seen, but in 100, or 1000 years when we have suffered an additional half-dozen or more of these disasters, and have still more Chernobyl or Fukushima areas of 'desolation' dotting our fair planets face, will we have learned anything?

The sad part to me is that, as I understand it, with enough foresight, planning and expenditure, nuclear power CAN be made to be truly 99.99% safe. These disasters are ultimately a result of cutting corners on the part of institutions that plan, design, build and run them.

Like OdinYggd said in the first page of the thread . . .

Also just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa...ar_Power_Plant

Apparently this power plant was in fact closer to the epicenter of the quake than Fukushima was, yet survived the earthquake with only minor damage none of which affected critical systems.

And not only did it survive the quake, protected by its 14 meter seawall from the 13 meter tsunami, they even used some of the unused facilities there to shelter residents of the nearby town- which had been obliterated by the Tsunami that the plant successfully survived.

This could actually prove to be a turning point for nuclear power- because this plant survived the quake through good engineering and conforming to recommendations regarding safety improvements, it shows very clearly that a lot of nuclear accidents result not from the inherent danger of nuclear power- but from mismanagement on the part of their operators resulting in cutting corners on safety measures.

The 'solution' seems pretty obvious. The nuclear industries around the world just need to acknowledge that they may have (in some instances) been lax in the past. They need to identify the plants that are questionable, and develop responsible plans to either decommission and replace them or refurbish them to address their shortcomings. Yes, that will likely involve hundreds of millions perhaps billions in up front costs. But given the cost of remediating the Fukushima disaster has already been multiple billions (and I bet there are at least some lawsuits pending) the cost to make every plant on the planet 99.99% safe seems pretty sensible from a business standpoint, not to mention conscientious, ethical and compassionate.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Seret]

I think you are white washing things Seret. The fact that the plant was not actually much impacted by the Tsunami in the first place demonstrates that.

I don't think I'm whitewashing at all. In the ensueing intense scrutiny there have been some failings on the part of TEPCO pointed out, but to lay the blame for the whole disaster on them is just silly. Would the plant have fared better if they'd never cut any corners? Probably. But what you've got to realise is that regulation in the nuclear industry is at almost insane levels. Nuclear has to conform to levels of paranoia and risk-aversion that are up to hundreds of times stricter than any other industry. TBH I'm not overly concerned about them cutting the occasional corner, given that this would still make them far safer than other heavy industries handling substances or processes that are just as dangerous. Such corner-cutting is an issue for the regulatory bodies, TEPCO should be censured, no doubt. But it wasn't TEPCO's fault that their plant got trashed any more than you can blame the mayors of the coastal towns that got wiped out because their tsunami walls weren't high enough.

It was flooding in the basement that led to the disaster as I understand it.

Flooding caused by the immense wall of water that had overtopped the berms, and flooded the whole plant (killing a couple of workers IIRC). The plant had already shut down as a precaution in the earthquake, and tsunami took out the connection to the grid, meaning they had to go to backup generators to keep the cooling systems online. The flooding then swamped the generators. The backup backup system was batteries, and the pumps ran on this as long as possible. If the outside world hadn't been trashed the grid could have come back up and powered the safety systems before the batts ran flat, but unfortunately the plant was alone in a sea of devastation. So once the batteries ran flat they were screwed. Even if the water hadn't flooded the gennies they may well still have been in trouble, depending on how much fuel they had for the generators onsite and uncontaminated. The only way to get more fuel in quickly would have been helicopter.

Basically the plant ran for as long as could in the face of multiple catastrophic failures. The reason the reactor systems staggered on for as long as they did after a major earthquake and tsunami is a testament to their conservative engineering, not a sign that the tsunami wasn't a devastating event. Reactors are built incredibly tough, which the fact that they not only weren't destroyed by the tsunami, but actually had functioning backup systems that could attempt to contain the problem shows nicely.

I don't think there's a reactor anywhere on earth that could withstand every potential natural disaster. Eventually a big enough one will come along to beat anything we humans try to build. We can build them as tough as we like, but sometimes we've just got to take our lumps. Thousand year events do happen.

The 'solution' seems pretty obvious. The nuclear industries around the world just need to acknowledge that they may have (in some instances) been lax in the past. They need to identify the plants that are questionable, and develop responsible plans to either decommission and replace them or refurbish them to address their shortcomings. Yes, that will likely involve hundreds of millions perhaps billions in up front costs. But given the cost of remediating the Fukushima disaster has already been multiple billions (and I bet there are at least some lawsuits pending) the cost to make every plant on the planet 99.99% safe seems pretty sensible from a business standpoint, not to mention conscientious, ethical and compassionate.

That's exactly what's being done. Pretty much every nuclear power operating country in the world immediately carried out an emergency review of their own systems in light of what happened.

Risk assessment and management is a funny business. You end up doing things like putting monetary values on human lives. I can assure you that 99.99% is well below the standards that nuclear has to work to. Here in the UK they required to design to a safety limit of one major accident per 10 million reactor years. Which you could think of as 99.99999% safe, or 1000 times higher than your figure.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Seret

[Diche Bach]

But what you've got to realise is that regulation in the nuclear industry is at almost insane levels. Nuclear has to conform to levels of paranoia and risk-aversion that are up to hundreds of times stricter than any other industry. TBH I'm not overly concerned about them cutting the occasional corner, given that this would still make them far safer than other heavy industries handling substances or processes that are just as dangerous.

Apart from nuclear materials, what other industry handle substances or processes that are "just as dangerous?"

I'm not aware of any other substances or processes that can, not only kill or harm thousands of living things and cause massive property damage but also make thousands of square kilometers of land permanently uninhabitable.

Thought experiment: assume that every single nuclear power plant on Earth today suffered a disaster somewhere between a Chernobyl and a Fukushima, how much land would be permanently contaminated? I can't think of any other industry where that thought experiment works.

Obviously I'm not proposing that 'every single nuclear power plant' or processing facility will experience such a major accident; that is not the point. The point is that even ONE additional accident that releases radiation in sufficient quantities to cause geographic desolation on any scale is one too many.

This is actually a very important issue because we face decline availability of fossil fuels, and nuclear energy offers one quite viable alternative that offers more-or-less infinite energy. However, the point that I'm making is, not that the risks of nuclear make it unviable, but that the risks mean that it must be treated special. If "hundreds of times stricter than any other industry" is not enough to prevent all such accidents then perhaps the regulations need to be ramped up to thousands or tens of thousands of times more strict.

Given the cumulative impact that these accidents can have over thousands of years in the future, we need to have a zero tolerance attitude, and by that I do not mean the irrational Greenpeace "No nukes" mantra. I mean that the industry needs to be _perfect_ in terms of safety and risk management. Anything less than perfection is simply not good enough in my opinion.

If perfection cannot be mustered, then we ought to seriously consider that we are 'playing with fire,' and meddling with something we cannot fully control.

[Seret]

Apart from nuclear materials, what other industry handle substances or processes that are "just as dangerous?"

I'm not aware of any other substances or processes that can, not only kill or harm thousands of living things and cause massive property damage but also make thousands of square kilometers of land permanently uninhabitable.

The companies that supply your water could kill thousands pretty easily. A lot of industrial facilities could kill thousands in a major failure (look up the Bhopal disaster in India). Even nice clean hydro power has killed swathes of folks when a dam fails. Explosives and fuel explosions are pretty obvious risks. Coal mines, dust explosions, the list goes on and on. Nuclear is not the only industry that's capable of causing a major loss of life.

This is actually a very important issue because we face decline availability of fossil fuels, and nuclear energy offers one quite viable alternative that offers more-or-less infinite energy.

Far from it. Nuclear energy is very much a finite resource. If we tried replacing all fossil fuels with it we'd run out pretty quickly. The problem of high-level wastes is still unsolved. There is currently no long-term plan for high-level waste anywhere. The plan at the moment is just to keep stacking them up until somebody comes up with something, which is obviously a crap plan in the long term.

However, the point that I'm making is, not that the risks of nuclear make it unviable, but that the risks mean that it must be treated special. If "hundreds of times stricter than any other industry" is not enough to prevent all such accidents then perhaps the regulations need to be ramped up to thousands or tens of thousands of times more strict.

The total damage caused by nuclear energy is still significantly lower than many other types of power, such as coal. If you want to reduce the impact on humans caused by our power systems, nuclear is not the most urgent target. External costs from coal are about ten times higher than nuclear.

I mean that the industry needs to be _perfect_ in terms of safety and risk management. Anything less than perfection is simply not good enough in my opinion.

If perfection cannot be mustered, then we ought to seriously consider that we are 'playing with fire,' and meddling with something we cannot fully control.

Risk management doesn't recognise the concept of zero risk. It's just about reducing it to reasonable levels given the finite resources available. What event do you design your plant to withstand to reach zero risk? A tsunami? A meteor strike? A supernova?

If you wanted to avoid doing anything that had a risk above zero, you'd rule out everything.

[pxi]

If perfection cannot be mustered, then we ought to seriously consider that we are 'playing with fire,' and meddling with something we cannot fully control.

I don't disagree, but consider that reducing risk has costs associated with it. If you want something that is infinitely safe, you had better be prepared to throw an infinite amount of money at it.

[Diche Bach]

Seret, You are clearly sympathetic to the nuclear power industry, and feel that Fukushima was an unavoidable accident, not the fault of TEPCO. On this you are in disagreement with the "Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC)." In their report to the Japanese Diet, the NAIC concluded that the disaster was "manmade," that the direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable and avoidable prior to the accident but had not been addressed because of a bureaucratic culture within Japan fraught with greed, cronyism, deceit and resistance to regulatory pressure; in sum, malfeasance of the worst order, though granted facilitated by a culture that gave tacit approval to such malfeasance.

I quote from the Chairman's Message at the beginning of the report:

THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI of March 11, 2011 were natural disasters of a magnitude that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.

And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response. How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and technology? This Commission believes the

Japanese people – and the global community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer to this question.

Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.

For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.

What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.†Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with

the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.

Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident, the result may well have been the same.

Following the 1970s “oil shocks,†Japan accelerated the development of nuclear power in an effort to achieve national energy security. As such, it was embraced as a policy goal by government and business alike, and pursued with the same single-minded determination

that drove Japan’s postwar economic miracle.

With such a powerful mandate, nuclear power became an unstoppable force, immune to scrutiny by civil society. Its regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy responsible for its promotion. At a time when Japan’s self-confidence was soaring, a tightly knit elite with enormous financial resources had diminishing regard for anything ‘not invented here.

This conceit was reinforced by the collective mindset of Japanese bureaucracy, by which the first duty of any individual bureaucrat is to defend the interests of his organization. Carried to an extreme, this led bureaucrats to put organizational interests ahead of their paramount duty to protect public safety.

Only by grasping this mindset can one understand how Japan’s nuclear industry managed to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; and how it became accepted practice to resist regulatory pressure and cover up small-scale accidents. It was this mindset that led to the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.

This report singles out numerous individuals and organizations for harsh criticism, but the goal is notâ€â€and should not beâ€â€to lay blame. The goal must be to learn from this disaster, and reflect deeply on its fundamental causes, in order to ensure that it is never repeated. Many of the lessons relate to policies and procedures, but the most important is one upon which each and every Japanese citizen should reflect very deeply.

The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us should reflect on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society. As the first investigative commission to be empowered by the legislature and independent of the bureaucracy, we hope this initiative can contribute to the development of Japan’s civil society.

Above all, we have endeavored to produce a report that meets the highest standard of transparency. The people of Fukushima, the people of Japan and the global community deserve nothing less.

While you are correct to point out that many industries pose risks to human and natural welfare, nothing except nuclear power can cause large tracts of land to become inhospitable for human life effectively forever. Beyond pointing that out to you I don't see you and I agreeing so we are probably best to just agree to disagree.

I don't disagree, but consider that reducing risk has costs associated with it. If you want something that is infinitely safe, you had better be prepared to throw an infinite amount of money at it.

"Perfect" is of course impossible. But as OdinYggd pointed out on the first page of this thread, other plants in the area, and even ones that were nearer to the epicenter of the earthquake fared much better. Based on that he concluded that good design, good engineering and devoted stewarding of the industry can correct most shortcomings that exist and bring all plants up to a very high and acceptable standard.

Had the most prominent examples of nuclear disasters thus far in history (Chernobyl, the Kyshtym disaster, Fukushima not _all_ been the result of gross negligence (as indeed it seems the vast majority of all accidents involving nuclear weapons and radioactive substances have been over the years) then there wouldn't be anything to talk about. We could conclude that there was little or no room for the industry to improve (speaking globally and in general). Instead, it is quite clear that the vast majority of accidents that have occurred where radiation was involved, whether large or small, catastrophic or minor, devastating or inconsequential, tend to relate back to either human malfeasance or human error. Cost savings and/or poor design and management decisions arise as the most prominent form of malfeasance in both Chernobyl, Kyshtym and Fukushima.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Diche Bach

[lajoswinkler]

I think you are missing my point gentlemen. The plant should never have broke and led to irradiation of the area in the first place. If the nuclear power industry adhered assiduously in every case to whatever standards they need to adhere to make such accidents exceedingly rare, then the public wouldn't need to worry about it. Blaming the failure of the area to rejuvenate on the public for not understanding the numbers is honestly a bit insensitive and arrogant. I do honestly find it interesting to hear you arguing that "there is nothing to worry" about and I am incredulous about that; but that is a bit of a side issue really.

Whether the area really is perfectly safe for human inhabitation or not is largely irrelevant at this point. In the first place, life there was disrupted by the disaster at the plant. At least temporarily it was unsafe to live there. Moreover, even if it is objectively 100% as safe as it was previously, the vacancy alone has caused permanent damage to the local economy and social fabric and it will likely never recover. Add to that that there will likely always be a reluctance on the part of families, or businesses to relocate there; even if it is not the least bit 'dangerous' to human health from a radiation standpoint, the surrounding land has been blighted nonetheless.

The blame for that harm to Japan and the world lies not with the public but with TEPCO and perhaps more broadly with the Japanese nuclear power industry and government. Lets not detract from that important truth by pointing out that silly lay people don't know the difference between ionizing radiation and magic.

I agree, main issue is TEPCO and Japan business culture that doesn't like whistleblowers, but you can't ignore the fact that Japanese people, a living culture that's the most advanced in the whole world (even to the point of sometimes being "where the busses don't go"), have embraced stupid antinuclear campaign. All because of fear.

People who live in Pripyat can't go home without expecting cancer in the next few years. Most people around Fukushima can, and many more will in the imminent future.

If Japan shuts down its power plants, rough times lay ahead. All because of irrational fear that can be avoided by education, but as much as the Soviets were corrupted, the Japanese are seclusive and there's too much of old world "honor" crap. It's a recipe for turning disasters into apocalypses.

[pxi]

-SNIP-

Thanks for the two links you posted, the Fukushima report will take a bit of reading, but I have to say I'd never heard of Kyshtym, and the details as presented in that Wikipedia article, are jaw-dropping to say the least, particularly the silence from the USA.

[Psycix]

This was my statement in another Fukushima thread:

I think that the Fukushima disaster is a display of nuclear reactor safety rather than hazard.

First off it is worth mentioning that this is caused by a natural disaster rather than human error.

Then there are the numbers:

A nuclear plant built all the way back in 1971 gets hit by an earthquake which is scaled by a staggering 9.0 magnitude, followed by a 14 meter high tsunami that flooded the entire place.

Despite these extreme conditions, the released radiation is be expected to globally kill a maximum of 130 humans through cancer - a fraction of the 18500 that died due to the same earthquake-tsunami combo.

To put this into perspective:

Multiple 40 year old nuclear reactors get hit by the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded, plus a tsunami that tops 10 meter high wall by an extra 40%. As a result the nuclear disaster is responsible for less than ~0,7% of all casualties of the earthquake and tsunami.

[drakesdoom]

Like OdinYggd said in the first page of the thread . . .

The 'solution' seems pretty obvious. The nuclear industries around the world just need to acknowledge that they may have (in some instances) been lax in the past. They need to identify the plants that are questionable, and develop responsible plans to either decommission and replace them or refurbish them to address their shortcomings. Yes, that will likely involve hundreds of millions perhaps billions in up front costs. But given the cost of remediating the Fukushima disaster has already been multiple billions (and I bet there are at least some lawsuits pending) the cost to make every plant on the planet 99.99% safe seems pretty sensible from a business standpoint, not to mention conscientious, ethical and compassionate.

[lajoswinkler]

TEPCO's power plant wasn't in the epicenter, so "staggering 9.0 magnitude" is just media hype. I don't know how rough was in that area, but it sure wasn't 9.0...

Regardless of that, almost all reactors survived intact.

[Diche Bach]

Thanks for the two links you posted, the Fukushima report will take a bit of reading, but I have to say I'd never heard of Kyshtym, and the details as presented in that Wikipedia article, are jaw-dropping to say the least, particularly the silence from the USA.

Glad to hear it was of interest. I am not expert on nuclear technology; I'm sure that a lot of these guys know the technicalities of it much better. But I have for a few years had a bit of a hobbyists interest in it from a more broad historical perspective; and I'm certainly not some extremist 'anti-nuclear.' Seems to me if it is exceptionally well funded and regulated it offers tremendous benefits to society. It is only when it is poorly funded and/or badly managed (as in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, Fukushima, etc.) that it poses a serious problem.

Anyway, what I have gathered is that there have been a LOT of accidents and incidents involving either nuclear weapons (e.g., bombs lost check out the Thule Incident), mishaps during nuclear weapons tests (then Castle Bravo test detonation in the Pacific irradiated a huge area of the Pacific and residents of several islands still believe they were exposed to harmful doses and that their public health demonstrates it), and relatively minor nuclear power incidents. There are several different pages on wiki that provide compiled lists of all of these incidents.

Nuclear accidents and incidents

This page that summarizes nuclear incidents in the U.S. offers interesting reflections on the discussion so far.

Globally, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear reactor accidents from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling US$20.5 billion in property damages. The accidents involved meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolant, and occurred during both normal operation and extreme emergency conditions (such as droughts and earthquakes). Property damage costs include destruction of property, emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, lost product, fines, and court claims.[2] Because nuclear reactors are large and complex accidents onsite tend to be relatively expensive.[3]

At least 56 nuclear reactor accidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities.[2] The most serious of these U.S. accidents was the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Davis-Besse has been the source of two of the top five most dangerous nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979.[1]

The United States General Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 alone of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines. In 2006, it said: "Since 2001, the ROP has resulted in more than 4,000 inspection findings concerning nuclear power plant licensees’ failure to fully comply with NRC regulations and industry standards for safe plant operation, and NRC has subjected more than 75 percent (79) of the 103 operating plants to increased oversight for varying periods".[4] Seventy-one percent of all recorded major nuclear accidents, including meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolants, occurred in the United States, and they happened during both normal operations as well as emergency situations such as floods, droughts, and earthquakes.[5]

ADDIT: and oh yeah, its not just significant patches of the Earth's surface, ocean, and underground that have been more or less permanently irradiated by some nuclear detonations. There are also number of Artificial radiation belts in orbit around Earth as a result of various high altitude or orbital test detonations. Several satellites have been destroyed or damaged from these radiated zones. I suppose they are a kind of navigational hazard for all future space travel.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Diche Bach]

You seem to be unaware that these two plants were protected by nearly identical backup and protection plans, the only reason one failed was two massive record setting waves overlapping thus cresting above the sea wall. The failure or success of these two plants came down to a 1 in a billion chance.

So you also disagree with the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission? You should send a note to the Chairman of the Commission, Kiyoshi Kurokawa Medical Doctor; Academic Fellow, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies; Former President of the Science Council of Japan, and let him know that he was wrong to say

THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI of March 11, 2011 were natural disasters of a magnitude that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.

I mean heck! The commission only has 10 experts on it (lawyers, MDs, Ph.D.s, former ambassadors, University Directors and Commercial Chairmen) and they only spent about 900 hours interviewing nearly 1200 people and visiting sites all around the area. Maybe they just didn't realize it was so simple as being a "one in a billion" stroke of bad luck. A note from you might help them to see the truth of the matter and retract their report to the Japanese Diet.

As far as the plant at Onagawa being 'identical' to the one at Fukushima . . . Japanese nuclear power plant survived tsunami, offers clues

(Reuters) - When the 13-meter (40-foot) tsunami that wrecked Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant hit Onagawa to the northeast, hundreds of residents found refuge at the local nuclear plant, rather than run the other way.

It was the right call.

At Fukushima, the tsunami knocked out power supply and its cooling system, triggering reactor meltdowns and forcing 80,000 to evacuate in the world's worst nuclear accident in 25 years. The Onagawa plant, in contrast, shut down safely and its gym served for three months as a shelter for those made homeless.

"At that time, there was no better place than the nuclear plant," said Hisashi Kimura, 57, who lost his home in Tsukahama, a small community on the outskirts of Onagawa just one km from the plant, and now lives in a temporary housing.

Onagawa may now serve as a trump card for the nuclear lobby -- an example that it is possible for nuclear facilities to withstand even the greatest shocks and to retain public trust.

Newer design, the plant's location on an elevated embankment nearly 14 meters above sea level, a bit of luck and management in touch with the local community made a big difference.

The earthquake knocked out four of the five external power lines, but the remaining line helped send its three reactors into cold shutdown within 10 hours.

Most importantly, the Onagawa plant stayed out of the tsunami's reach thanks to the foresight of a past executive at operator, Tohoku Power Electric Co, who insisted on building the plant on an embankment much higher than was thought necessary.

Not only did the plant survive the impact of the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and the resulting tsunami, its operator appears to have avoided the sort of public backlash that has dogged Fukushima plant owner Tokyo Electric Power Co..

"nearly identical backup and protection plans," maybe so. The Reuters article doesn't really discuss that. But it does make it pretty clear that the design of the plant anticipated the possible Tsunami, thus avoiding the problem which led to the Fukushima disaster. This is probably one of the things the Commission was talking about when they said that the Fukushima disaster was a "profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented."

[rkman]

I would say the problem is with a nuclear industry that tried to cut corners. You cannot blame lay people for being concerned. Not everyone is a physicist.

I'd say they were successful in cutting corners and thus created a problem.

If there would be no problem, then there would be no reason for concern.

But by your own admission there is a problem, and thus reason for concern.

"Fukushima might have had an easier time as well if they hadn't of ignored certain industry suggestions regarding the construction of their plant"

always so nice in 20-20 hindsight

Except that it is not hindsight if warnings have been issued beforehand, as is the case here.

Edited September 16, 2013 by rkman

[Seret]

Seret, You are clearly sympathetic to the nuclear power industry

Not at all, I consider them a (temporarily) acceptable evil. Nuclear power forms a substantial chunk of the baseload generation in many countries. They aren't going to go away any time soon, and TBH the stuff that would replace them is generally more harmful overall. At the price baseload generation sells for the replacement technologies are often likely to be coal, which is immensely worse than nuclear.

On this you are in disagreement with the "Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission (NAIIC).

Given the political situation in Japan surrounding the incident I strongly suspect that the commission was a witchhunt. I don't consider the Japanese government's investigation to be a substantially more a reliable source than TEPCO itself. In general would trust non-Japanese reviews of the incident more than Japanese ones, as these are less likely to have been influenced politically (if such a thing is possible in the review of nuclear safety).

While you are correct to point out that many industries pose risks to human and natural welfare, nothing except nuclear power can cause large tracts of land to become inhospitable for human life effectively forever.

Firstly, the only area that will be unusuable long-term is the area around Chernobyl. None of the other major nuclear accidents (3-mile Island, Windscale, Fukushima, etc) have resulted in any land being quarantined "forever". The exclusion zone around Fukushima is gradually being revoked at present.

Overall, when you evaluate external impacts from energy sources, complete loss of land is only one metric and overall nuclear has resulted in far less loss of usable land than hydro. You've also got to evaluate degradation of land, rather than total loss. On this score coal fares extremely badly, burning coal results in acid rain that can destroy and damage forests and crops on a continental scale. The loss of revenue for forestry from coal burning is immense. On top of land impact there's also the impact on human health. Again, coal comes out far worse than nuclear. In fact, coal plants also emit more radiation than nuclear. Strange but true.

For an idea of the ballpark figures for total external impact of electricity generation from various sources, the table on this page is fairly typical. There's not exact agreement between academics on exact impact figures, as methodologies differ, but they're all within the same order of magnitude. Roughly speaking, nuclear is less than about one tenth as damaging as coal and oil.

There are however huge problems with nuclear. Waste as I mentioned above is an unsolved problem, and nuclear is generally pretty expensive and will only get moreso in the future. However, I don't agree that safety is a major concern. The few accidents there have been have mostly had a very limited impact (Chernobyl being the obvious exception) and overall nuclear is less damaging than many of the alternatives. For that reason I find it an acceptable interim solution until we get our act together and make the large changes to our power systems that we need. It sure wouldn't be my first choice though.

[drakesdoom]

As far as the plant at Onagawa being 'identical' to the one at Fukushima . . . Japanese nuclear power plant survived tsunami, offers clues

I find the validity of this article to be highly suspect considering there were no meltdowns and it says there were, the journalist has thus demonstrated he has no intention of being truthful.

As for the commission report findings, welcome to Japanese culture if something goes wrong heads will role, often literally. Both plants met standards, one happened to be further above sea level, didn't get hit by a record setting double wave, and didn't lose all outside power. 3 unforeseeable events working together to cause a disaster clearly falls in 1 in a million chances.

[OdinYggd]

There actually was an American accident some years before Chernobyl that drove home the value of containment buildings.

Army reactor SL-1, which was destroyed when operator error during a maintenance procedure caused a nuclear excursion and steam explosion, blowing the lid of the reactor clean off. Sounds like Chernobyl right?

It just so happens that the thick steel building surrounding it as extra shielding happened to be strong enough to confine the blast, keeping the vast majority of the radiation safely confined and comparatively easy to clean up after.

All American reactor designs have had confinement ever since for this very reason, as all but the worst possible case scenarios will stay safely within the confinement area where they are much easier to mitigate.

Fukushima's issue is the reactor was damaged enough to make it leaky, making it impossible to provide closed loop cooling inside the confinement space. They are being forced to run water once-through the reactor, and then store the contaminated byproduct in stand alone tanks scattered throughout the grounds. Soon as they can either defuel the reactor or get it back onto a closed loop cooling solution, they'll be able to do something about new radioactive materials escaping into the environment and concentrate on cleaning up those which already have.

[lajoswinkler]

Every power plant, not just American ones, have protective domes except some Soviet plants.

In fact, the No#1 nuclear force in the world is France, with lots of high tech power plants. France heavily dictates the trends in the industry. American plants are so old and that's because not one was built after TMI. Bad idea.

Fukushima's reactors were rescued by closed loop cooling shortly after the accident. At first, it was just pumping in sea and dumping it out into the ocean, while the things were still very hot.

Defueling will probably not happen in the near future. They'll just entomb it into concrete, which is not hard because those lightbulb designs are already a bunch of concrete.