Log in

View Full Version : Fukushima: It's Much Worse Than You Think



Hebrew Hammer
18th June 2011, 05:52
Fukushima: It's much worse than you think.

Scientific experts believe Japan's nuclear disaster to be far worse than governments are revealing to the public.

"Fukushima is the biggest industrial catastrophe in the history of mankind," Arnold Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, told Al Jazeera.

Japan's 9.0 earthquake on March 11 caused a massive tsunami that crippled the cooling systems at the Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan. It also led to hydrogen explosions and reactor meltdowns that forced evacuations of those living within a 20km radius of the plant.

Gundersen, a licensed reactor operator with 39 years of nuclear power engineering experience, managing and coordinating projects at 70 nuclear power plants around the US, says the Fukushima nuclear plant likely has more exposed reactor cores than commonly believed.

"Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively."

TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of.

"The problem is how to keep it cool," says Gundersen. "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"

Even though the plant is now shut down, fission products such as uranium continue to generate heat, and therefore require cooling.

"The fuels are now a molten blob at the bottom of the reactor," Gundersen added. "TEPCO announced they had a melt through. A melt down is when the fuel collapses to the bottom of the reactor, and a melt through means it has melted through some layers. That blob is incredibly radioactive, and now you have water on top of it. The water picks up enormous amounts of radiation, so you add more water and you are generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water."

Independent scientists have been monitoring the locations of radioactive "hot spots" around Japan, and their findings are disconcerting.

"We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl," said Gundersen. "The data I'm seeing shows that we are finding hot spots further away than we had from Chernobyl, and the amount of radiation in many of them was the amount that caused areas to be declared no-man's-land for Chernobyl. We are seeing square kilometres being found 60 to 70 kilometres away from the reactor. You can't clean all this up. We still have radioactive wild boar in Germany, 30 years after Chernobyl."

Radiation monitors for children

Japan's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters finally admitted earlier this month that reactors 1, 2, and 3 at the Fukushima plant experienced full meltdowns.

TEPCO announced that the accident probably released more radioactive material into the environment than Chernobyl, making it the worst nuclear accident on record.

Meanwhile, a nuclear waste advisor to the Japanese government reported that about 966 square kilometres near the power station - an area roughly 17 times the size of Manhattan - is now likely uninhabitable.

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.

The eight cities included in the report are San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise, and the time frame of the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster.

"There is and should be concern about younger people being exposed, and the Japanese government will be giving out radiation monitors to children," Dr MV Ramana, a physicist with the Programme on Science and Global Security at Princeton University who specialises in issues of nuclear safety, told Al Jazeera.

Dr Ramana explained that he believes the primary radiation threat continues to be mostly for residents living within 50km of the plant, but added: "There are going to be areas outside of the Japanese government's 20km mandatory evacuation zone where radiation is higher. So that could mean evacuation zones in those areas as well."

Gundersen points out that far more radiation has been released than has been reported.

"They recalculated the amount of radiation released, but the news is really not talking about this," he said. "The new calculations show that within the first week of the accident, they released 2.3 times as much radiation as they thought they released in the first 80 days."

According to Gundersen, the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles".

"We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo," he said. "Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters."

Radioactive air filters from cars in Fukushima prefecture and Tokyo are now common, and Gundersen says his sources are finding radioactive air filters in the greater Seattle area of the US as well.

The hot particles on them can eventually lead to cancer.

"These get stuck in your lungs or GI tract, and they are a constant irritant," he explained, "One cigarette doesn't get you, but over time they do. These [hot particles] can cause cancer, but you can't measure them with a Geiger counter. Clearly people in Fukushima prefecture have breathed in a large amount of these particles. Clearly the upper West Coast of the US has people being affected. That area got hit pretty heavy in April."

Blame the US?

In reaction to the Fukushima catastrophe, Germany is phasing out all of its nuclear reactors over the next decade. In a referendum vote this Monday, 95 per cent of Italians voted in favour of blocking a nuclear power revival in their country. A recent newspaper poll in Japan shows nearly three-quarters of respondents favour a phase-out of nuclear power in Japan.

Why have alarms not been sounded about radiation exposure in the US?

Nuclear operator Exelon Corporation has been among Barack Obama's biggest campaign donors, and is one of the largest employers in Illinois where Obama was senator. Exelon has donated more than $269,000 to his political campaigns, thus far. Obama also appointed Exelon CEO John Rowe to his Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.

Dr Shoji Sawada is a theoretical particle physicist and Professor Emeritus at Nagoya University in Japan.
He is concerned about the types of nuclear plants in his country, and the fact that most of them are of US design.

"Most of the reactors in Japan were designed by US companies who did not care for the effects of earthquakes," Dr Sawada told Al Jazeera. "I think this problem applies to all nuclear power stations across Japan."

Using nuclear power to produce electricity in Japan is a product of the nuclear policy of the US, something Dr Sawada feels is also a large component of the problem.

"Most of the Japanese scientists at that time, the mid-1950s, considered that the technology of nuclear energy was under development or not established enough, and that it was too early to be put to practical use," he explained. "The Japan Scientists Council recommended the Japanese government not use this technology yet, but the government accepted to use enriched uranium to fuel nuclear power stations, and was thus subjected to US government policy."

As a 13-year-old, Dr Sawada experienced the US nuclear attack against Japan from his home, situated just 1400 metres from the hypocentre of the Hiroshima bomb.

"I think the Fukushima accident has caused the Japanese people to abandon the myth that nuclear power stations are safe," he said. "Now the opinions of the Japanese people have rapidly changed. Well beyond half the population believes Japan should move towards natural electricity."

A problem of infinite proportions

Dr Ramana expects the plant reactors and fuel cores to be cooled enough for a shutdown within two years.
"But it is going to take a very long time before the fuel can be removed from the reactor," he added. "Dealing with the cracking and compromised structure and dealing with radiation in the area will take several years, there's no question about that."

Dr Sawada is not as clear about how long a cold shutdown could take, and said the problem will be "the effects from caesium-137 that remains in the soil and the polluted water around the power station and underground. It will take a year, or more time, to deal with this".

Gundersen pointed out that the units are still leaking radiation.

"They are still emitting radioactive gases and an enormous amount of radioactive liquid," he said. "It will be at least a year before it stops boiling, and until it stops boiling, it's going to be cranking out radioactive steam and liquids."

Gundersen worries about more earthquake aftershocks, as well as how to cool two of the units.

"Unit four is the most dangerous, it could topple," he said. "After the earthquake in Sumatra there was an 8.6 [aftershock] about 90 days later, so we are not out of the woods yet. And you're at a point where, if that happens, there is no science for this, no one has ever imagined having hot nuclear fuel lying outside the fuel pool. They've not figured out how to cool units three and four."

Gundersen's assessment of solving this crisis is grim.

"Units one through three have nuclear waste on the floor, the melted core, that has plutonium in it, and that has to be removed from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years," he said. "Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."

Dr Sawada says that the creation of nuclear fission generates radioactive materials for which there is simply no knowledge informing us how to dispose of the radioactive waste safely.

"Until we know how to safely dispose of the radioactive materials generated by nuclear plants, we should postpone these activities so as not to cause further harm to future generations," he explained. "To do otherwise is simply an immoral act, and that is my belief, both as a scientist and as a survivor of the Hiroshima atomic bombing."

Gundersen believes it will take experts at least ten years to design and implement the plan.

"So ten to 15 years from now maybe we can say the reactors have been dismantled, and in the meantime you wind up contaminating the water," Gundersen said. "We are already seeing Strontium [at] 250 times the allowable limits in the water table at Fukushima. Contaminated water tables are incredibly difficult to clean. So I think we will have a contaminated aquifer in the area of the Fukushima site for a long, long time to come."

Unfortunately, the history of nuclear disasters appears to back Gundersen's assessment.

"With Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and now with Fukushima, you can pinpoint the exact day and time they started," he said, "But they never end."

link (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html)

SHORAS
18th June 2011, 06:28
Jesus fucking christ we need communism. Interesting about Germany getting rid, tho' will that actually happen and where has the decision come from? Surely not from some lefties protesting? And would it count as reforming capitalism, no doubt further exploitation would take its place. Anything to do with Greens not being funded by certain capitalists?

Hivemind
18th June 2011, 06:32
I've known for a while that the Fukushima thing was much worse than they said it was, and many things that I've read over the past few months have confirmed my fears. Only time will tell just how fucked it will end up being. Can't possibly be good though.

Dr Mindbender
18th June 2011, 19:29
In b4 hysterical anti-nuke crowd-

Lets remember this is an indictment of poor planning and management, not nuclear power per sae.

Foreigner
19th June 2011, 02:32
Fuck you and your catchwords, Dr Mindbender. Hysterical this.

Of course, I guess I should credit you for forgetting to call those opposed to nuclear power a "lobby" and to impute to them collusion with the coal industry.

RED DAVE
25th June 2011, 16:22
In b4 hysterical anti-nuke crowd-

Lets remember this is an indictment of poor planning and management, not nuclear power per sae.You still don't get it: this is capitalism. Cap;italism is poor planning and management. Everything under capitalism is poorly planned and mismanaged because it is managed and planned for profit under a dictatorship.

After the revolution, a rational, revolutionary democratic decision can be made as to whether or not this stuff can ever be used. But for now the only rational demand is to shut down all nukes.

By the way, your position is a prime example of why Technocracy is fucked up. You keep insisting that, somehow, what we are dealing with is a problem of "planning and management," which is our old friend technique. It is grossly obvious that the mistakes here are political and the solution to nuclear power is a political one.


"Somehow, robotically, they will have to go in there and manage to put it in a container and store it for infinity, and that technology doesn't exist. Nobody knows how to pick up the molten core from the floor, there is no solution available now for picking that up from the floor."This is what capitalism has created. The same people are still running the show.

SHUT 'EM DOWN!

RED DAVE

RED DAVE
29th June 2011, 02:14
Fukushima's cesium spew - deadly catch-22s

By W David Kubiak

For those most focused on Fukushima’s human toll, there are several main sources of concern: the continuing radiation menace in the region’s fields, crops and seafood; and TEPCO’s recent admission that its reactors won’t be under control until 2012 at best.

These offer critical reminders that radioactive cesium is now Japan’s public enemy No. 1.
Behind the confusing fog of rad, rem, becquerel and milliseivert statistics lurks the basic fact that the spread of cesium 137 was the deadliest legacy of Chernobyl and is now the gravest health threat facing eastern Japan. Moving through strong radiation fields like chest X-rays, U.S. airport scanners or Fukushima reactor rubble is obviously hazardous, but time limited. Carrying the radiation source around inside you 24/7, however, poses an exponentially greater threat, especially when it’s an aggressive ionizing radionuclide like cesium 137 with a half-life of 30 years.

Despite its meager eight-day half-life, iodine 121 somehow became the rock star of radiation reporting and always gets top billing when things slip out of control. People in affected areas routinely dose themselves with potassium iodide to protect against I-121 exposure, but they hear little and do nothing about the cesium 137 they absorb. Cesium levels are usually reported second, if at all, even though they pose far greater risks for children, farm communities and the public at large.

Spawned profusely in fission reactions, cesium 137 decays slowly, bioaccumulates rapidly, spews intense gamma rays and hitchhikes easily in water, air and food. Imbibed, inhaled or eaten, even a few atoms can stir up mutagenic havoc in the organs where they land. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences apparently had cesium in mind when it announced in 2005 that the only safe radiation level for young people is absolutely none at all.

As Kanto/Tohoku parents are becoming aware, their children are now surrounded by unnaturally high cesium levels in local neighborhoods and schoolyards, which translate into incessant exposure and countless youth at risk.

There is a common proven purge for cesium 137 called Prussian Blue (PB), but Japan blocks access to it with a tangle of catch-22s. Doctors abroad are counseled to use PB as quickly as possible for any “known or suspected radiocesium contamination” and can use a relatively simple urine test to assess cesium levels. In Japan, however, doctors can’t prescribe PB without a 10 million yen “whole body radiation counter,” but according to NHK, there was only one such machine in all of Fukushima as of June 2 and it can only process ten patients a day.http://www.japantoday.com/category/commentary/view/fukushimas-cesium-spew-deadly-catch-22s

RED DAVE

Jose Gracchus
29th June 2011, 02:21
Exactly how many people have died again?

I don't see people calling for pesticides to be banned because capitalists managed Bhopal and the UK developed V-series NERVE AGENTS while producing them and spraying them around India.

Revy
29th June 2011, 02:41
Nuclear power cannot ever be "safe". It must be abolished.

We do not need oil/coal OR nuclear. We need safe, clean renewable fuels such as solar, wind, and wave. There is nothing safe or clean or renewable about nuclear power, which produces toxic waste as a byproduct, and results in disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

agnixie
29th June 2011, 07:23
solar, wind, and wave.

They can't provide enough power. Wind is on the whole rather weak, wave is limited, and solar, well, takes oil as a raw material and could barely provide worldwide power needs now even if we paved earth with photovoltaic cells. There are also such things as clean nuclear.

Revy
29th June 2011, 08:06
They can't provide enough power. Wind is on the whole rather weak, wave is limited, and solar, well, takes oil as a raw material and could barely provide worldwide power needs now even if we paved earth with photovoltaic cells. There are also such things as clean nuclear.

No such thing as "clean nuclear" given the amount of toxic waste it creates.

Wind, solar and wave power are not weak. Also, they're being constantly improved to generate more power.

It's not being used because it obviously presents a threat to both the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Apparently it is too much to ask that we fuel the planet without putting our planet at risk.

#FF0000
29th June 2011, 08:41
Nuclear power cannot ever be "safe". It must be abolished.

We do not need oil/coal OR nuclear. We need safe, clean renewable fuels such as solar, wind, and wave. There is nothing safe or clean or renewable about nuclear power, which produces toxic waste as a byproduct, and results in disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Taking all of these disasters into account, nuclear is still cleaner and does less ecological damage than coal.

Salyut
29th June 2011, 09:32
Wind, solar and wave power are not weak. Also, they're being constantly improved to generate more power.


Location dependent and solar depends on extremely expensive production facilities that consume rare earth minerals.

agnixie
29th June 2011, 09:41
No such thing as "clean nuclear" given the amount of toxic waste it creates.

Wind, solar and wave power are not weak. Also, they're being constantly improved to generate more power.

It's not being used because it obviously presents a threat to both the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. Apparently it is too much to ask that we fuel the planet without putting our planet at risk.

Fusion is nuclear, but ten years away. It's perfectly clean, and the amount of hydrogen needed to replace all the oil used by the world would be so small we could go and mine it on the moon and it would still beat the price of oil by a couple orders of magnitude. Thorium based molten salt reactors are also clean; no chance of meltdown, of explosions, etc, its only problematic waste has a half life of only 27 years and can be reused in other reactions. We've been using them since the 60s but it never got mainstream because you can't weaponize thorium; it also produces more power at the same amount of fuel, and is more common than uranium, in fact it's basically common as dirt. India has started building those. France also has been powering itself and part of its neighbours for the last 40 years with an ever increasing amount of nuclear plants (producing most of its electricity today), and with a recycling cycle that reduces waste while producing more power for the same amount of uranium. They also are not building power plants directly on fault lines, like one japanese plant where the government realized they'd done that only after it was finished.

Wind has an energy potential worldwide that would barely power Germany. Solar, well paving the sahara with photovoltaics would be an ecological disaster (also I forgot the rare earth minerals), and wave is still location dependent.

Besides, I'll be honest, I'd still be for uranium fission if it just means that we eventually end up needing to use nuclear arsenals to make electricity. I prefer taking the risk of another major land war happening than the risk of a major war that would destroy the planet.

Also I would add other renewables - methane is virtually renewable thanks to it being produced by waste decay, and breaking it down is a good way to help for gas emissions as methane is much much worse than carbon dioxide, and geothermal power is interesting, but it has the problem that in some places like Switzerland, it has caused earthquakes.

Revy
29th June 2011, 14:12
I'm not talking about fusion, I'm talking about fission. Defending nuclear fission by bringing up the still theoretical nuclear fusion, doesn't make sense. There isn't one nuclear fusion plant in existence. But I don't see how it is relevant to bring it up when discussing fission. The advocates of fusion say that fission is dangerous while fusion is safe. Doesn't really go well with the fission apologist side.

And saying something is 10 years away, well, that's great (even though we don't know if it's true), but we have to focus on solutions we can do now. Climate change is not "10 years away", and a nuclear accident could happen at any moment. If fusion is truly clean and safe, then we can try and develop that, alongside solar, wind and wave. As for the Moon, well, I doubt we'll have full fledged Helium-3 mining operations on the moon by 2021.

You seem to be saying, renewable, safe, clean energy is useless (wrong), so let's stick with nuclear, toxic to humans, in the hope it will lead to fusion (as if the nuclear industry has any interest in that).

If anything, abolishing nuclear fission opens the door for fusion rather than close it.

agnixie
29th June 2011, 15:07
I'm not talking about fusion, I'm talking about fission. Defending nuclear fission by bringing up the still theoretical nuclear fusion, doesn't make sense. There isn't one nuclear fusion plant in existence. But I don't see how it is relevant to bring it up when discussing fission. The advocates of fusion say that fission is dangerous while fusion is safe. Doesn't really go well with the fission apologist side.

You missed the part where I mentioned thorium fission. In fact not just missed, but rambled about fission without even acknowledging I mentioned that.



You seem to be saying, renewable, safe, clean energy is useless (wrong), so let's stick with nuclear, toxic to humans, in the hope it will lead to fusion (as if the nuclear industry has any interest in that).
Cut the strawmen, now, I said no such thing. I'll note that the "nuclear industry" is rather insignificant as a whole within capitalist society, as private nuclear power is not a great source of profit. Or not a source of much profit at all.



If anything, abolishing nuclear fission opens the door for fusion rather than close it.
By the same token, abolishing teaching evolution would also improve our understanding of genetics... wait, no.

RED DAVE
16th July 2011, 02:15
Capitalist planning continues to show its ability to secure nuclear plants and nuclear waste for the next few thousand years.


Fort Calhoun Builds New Wall to Divert Missouri River Flood

Over the weekend Omaha Public Power District crews worked to install a replacement wall at the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant near Omaha, Nebr. Thank goodness for the tireless efforts of the OPPD.

The earlier wall, a water-filled aqua berm, was damaged and deflated two weeks ago allowing flood waters to creep closer to the nuclear power plant.

Although the previous wall failed due to an accidental run-in with a Bobcat loader, will the new aqua berm be able to hold back the steady flowing Missouri River flood waters?http://www.newsdx.com/articles/85804-fort-calhoun-builds-new-wall-to-divert-missouri-river-flood/

RED DAVE

RED DAVE
16th July 2011, 02:22
Japan seems to be following Germany with regard to nuclear energy.


Saturday, July 16, 2011

Fukushima to scrap nuclear plants

Prefecture vows to shift from atomic to renewable energy

Kyodo

FUKUSHIMA — Fukushima Prefecture vowed to shift away from nuclear power plants in its vision compiled Friday for reconstruction after the March 11 quake and tsunami.

The about-face came after Prime Minister Naoto Kan's declaration Wednesday of pursuing a society free from dependence on nuclear energy and is expected to affect the policies of other prefectures that host atomic plants.

Fukushima may be the first prefecture with nuclear plants to vow to eliminate them, an official at the Natural Resources and Energy Agency said.

It has coexisted with nuclear plants since the first reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant started commercial operation in 1971.

It now has 10 reactors, including those at the plant plagued with the crisis.

On June 27, Fukushima Gov. Yuhei Sato specified his change in policy from tolerance of nuclear plants before the disaster, saying he concluded that Fukushima should pursue a society that does not depend on nuclear energy.

The vision calls for promoting renewable energy sources instead of nuclear energy, overcoming the present nuclear crisis and building a society invulnerable to disasters.
The prefecture will officially adopt the reconstruction vision in early August after soliciting public comments. The vision will be the basis for a reconstruction plan to be developed by the end of this year.

'Personal' policy: Kan

Prime Minister Naoto Kan told Cabinet members Friday that the policy he announced this week of trying to build a society that doesn't depend on nuclear energy is "personal," not government policy, Finance Minister Yoshihiko Noda said.

The disparity over Kan's views on nuclear issues within the Cabinet also became clearer. National Public Safety Commission chief Kansei Nakano said Kan's remarks Wednesday are "causing confusion" as he and other Cabinet members were not informed in advance what he would say.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said an informal Cabinet meeting on nuclear issues will likely be held early next week.

Noda said the government should not decide future policy on nuclear energy "too hastily."

Economics minister Kaoru Yosano said the issue of how to reduce Japan's dependence on nuclear energy must be addressed within the wider context of energy policy.

"It will likely take a fairly long time before the country can completely reduce nuclear power generation," Yosano, known as a proponent of atomic energy, said.

On Wednesday, Kan said Japan should aim to eventually pull out of nuclear energy after gradually reducing its use in the coming years in light of the serious accident at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

Before the March 11 earthquake and tsunami ravaged the Fukushima plant, nuclear energy accounted for about 30 percent of electricity generated in Japan.http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110716a4.html

RED DAVE

Summerspeaker
16th July 2011, 21:57
It's super sad for this to have happened in Japan. Worst nuclear disaster ever and the only place nuclear bombs have been used in earnest. :(

The narratives of it's-better-than-coal! and required-energy-consumption! worry me.

Tablo
16th July 2011, 22:00
I still want to make use of nuclear power, we just need to start being more responsible with it. If it were more feasible I would rather use solar though.

RED DAVE
16th July 2011, 22:18
I still want to make use of nuclear power, we just need to start being more responsible with it. If it were more feasible I would rather use solar though.At present, "we" is the bourgeoisie, and it has been shown that they are incapable of "being more responsible with it" as their motive is profit not safety.

Shut 'em down!

After the revolution, with the working class firmly in control of the economy of the wrld "we" can make a reasonable judgment about this.

(In my opinion, given the fact that nuclear was has to be kept for thousands of years, it is highly unlike that that this shit can ever be made safe.)

RED DAVE

Tablo
16th July 2011, 23:02
At present, "we" is the bourgeoisie, and it has been shown that they are incapable of "being more responsible with it" as their motive is profit not safety.

Shut 'em down!

After the revolution, with the working class firmly in control of the economy of the wrld "we" can make a reasonable judgment about this.

(In my opinion, given the fact that nuclear was has to be kept for thousands of years, it is highly unlike that that this shit can ever be made safe.)

RED DAVE
True. It is up to the bourgeoisie to be more responsible and they won't do that because it hurts their profits..

The Dark Side of the Moon
16th July 2011, 23:12
So what? I don't see why where getting rid of the cleanest form of energy out there? The goddammed media makes it look like: nuclear power is bad, so do power by petrol or coal

The Vegan Marxist
16th July 2011, 23:24
Seriously, it's fucking nonsense and childish to call for the elimination of something good for humanity because the people we like and side with aren't in power. How about we prevent aids and cancer cures as well until we're in power as well? Does that suffice Red Dave's conscience; to know that since he's unable to acquire these great things, no one else is able as well? :rolleyes:

Revy
16th July 2011, 23:25
If some on the left are going to defend nuclear power , what's next, defend the oil industry and coal industry and deny the existence of climate change? I wonder how far these anti-environment leftists will go. Maybe they will say DDT should be brought back in agriculture and use asbestos in construction. It seems like the "Human Progress Group" cares little about human health. To them being green is "reactionary". I see "human progress" as exactly the same as being an environmentalist.

Technology can be considered "progress" only if it is advanced in a progressive way, and technologies that harm the environment and human health cannot be considered progress. If you see the world in terms of Sim City (a video game), then you could care less I guess about how certain industries harm people, but if you see the world as a collection of human beings, then you might care. It is certainly not "rational" to jump at defending every technology in spite of huge evidence against it being safe. And bringing up technophobia is just false, because technology is the only way we are going to get out of this mess, but it will be technology that is not destructive and does not present such great risk to human life and health.

There aren't many countries with nuclear power that haven't experienced some kind of nuclear accident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

Three Mile Island released "minor" amounts of radiation, and the authorities claimed that there wasn't enough to effect anyone, yet the Northeast US has some of the highest cancer rates compared to the rest of the US. Coincidence? I think not!

And a 1997 study showed that radiation from TMI did indeed increase cancer rates in the surrounding area.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1469835/


Previous studies concluded that there was no evidence that the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) affected cancer incidence in the surrounding area; however, there were logical and methodological problems in earlier reports that led us to reconsider data previously collected. A 10-mile area around TMI was divided into 69 study tracts, which were assigned radiation dose estimates based on radiation reading and models of atmospheric dispersion. Incident cancers from 1975 to 1985 were ascertained from hospital records and assigned to study tracts. Associations between accident doses and incidence rates of leukemia, lung cancer, and all cancer were assessed using relative dose estimates calculated by the earlier investigators. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic characteristics, and preaccident variation in incidence. Considering a 2-year latency, the estimated percent increase per dose unit +/- standard error was 0.020 +/- 0.012 for all cancer, 0.082 +/- 0.032 for lung cancer, and 0.116 +/- 0.067 for leukemia. Adjustment for socioeconomic variables increased the estimates to 0.034 +/- 0.013, 0.103 +/- 0.035, and 0.139 +/- 0.073 for all cancer, lung cancer, and leukemia, respectively. Associations were generally larger considering a 5-year latency, but were based on smaller numbers of cases. Results support the hypothesis that radiation doses are related to increased cancer incidence around TMI. The analysis avoids medical detection bias, but suffers from inaccurate dose classification; therefore, results may underestimate the magnitude of the association between radiation and cancer incidence. These associations would not be expected, based on previous estimates of near-background levels of radiation exposure following the accident.

RED DAVE
17th July 2011, 03:20
Seriously, it's fucking nonsense and childish to call for the elimination of something good for humanity because the people we like and side with aren't in power.So long as the bourgeolisie is in power, it isn't good for humanity.


How about we prevent aids and cancer cures as well until we're in power as well?Next time an AIDS or cancer cure threatens the future of mankind, let me know.


Does that suffice Red Dave's conscience; to know that since he's unable to acquire these great things, no one else is able as well? :rolleyes:You make no sense whatsoever. You're really an asshole.

RED DAVE

RichardAWilson
17th July 2011, 03:55
Nuclear energy is unsustainable.

Nuclear energy produces radioactive wastes which take thousands of years to break down. (I.e. there’s a solid scientific case against such energy). Furthermore, uranium is a non-renewable resource that can be exhausted. - Not to mention the ecological damage caused by mining the uranium.

We need a massive international renewable investments program that will revive the global economy and provide millions of jobless men and women with high-paying green jobs.

In other words, a Green New Deal should be included in the International Socialist Program. (I.e. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Tidal, Biomass, Geothermal, Waste-to-Gas and Waste-to-Energy Incineration).

The Underdog
24th July 2011, 21:38
The cancer yield from this catastrophe is going to be in the millions.

agnixie
25th July 2011, 01:47
Nuclear energy is unsustainable.

Nuclear energy produces radioactive wastes which take thousands of years to break down. (I.e. there’s a solid scientific case against such energy). Furthermore, uranium is a non-renewable resource that can be exhausted. - Not to mention the ecological damage caused by mining the uranium.

We need a massive international renewable investments program that will revive the global economy and provide millions of jobless men and women with high-paying green jobs.

In other words, a Green New Deal should be included in the International Socialist Program. (I.e. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Tidal, Biomass, Geothermal, Waste-to-Gas and Waste-to-Energy Incineration).

Yes, if your only understanding of "nuclear" is uranium fission. Again, I talked about thorium fission. Different beast. Completely different. There are also environmentally sound ways to extract uranium.

RED DAVE
28th July 2011, 21:59
Fun and games with workers lives; yours too.


July 26, 2011

Via The Mainichi Daily News:

Nuclear plant workers developed cancer despite lower radiation exposure than legal limit.

Of 10 nuclear power plant workers who have developed cancer and received workers' compensation in the past, nine had been exposed to less than 100 millisieverts of radiation, it has been learned.

The revelation comes amid reports that a number of workers battling the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant were found to have been exposed to more than the emergency limit of 250 millisieverts, which was raised from the previous limit of 100 millisieverts in March.

According to Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry statistics, of the 10 nuclear power plant workers, six had leukemia, two multiple myeloma and another two lymphatic malignancy. Only one had been exposed to 129.8 millisieverts but the remaining nine were less than 100 millisieverts, including one who had been exposed to about 5 millisieverts.

Nobuyuki Shimahashi, a worker at the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant, where operations were recently suspended by Chubu Electric Power Co., died of leukemia in 1991 at age 29. His 74-year-old mother Michiko remembers her son dropping from 80 kilograms to 50 kilograms and his gums bleeding.

Shimahashi was in charge of maintaining and checking measuring instruments inside the nuclear power plant as a subcontract employee. He had 50.63 millisieverts of radiation exposure over a period of eight years and 10 months.

His radiation exposure monitoring databook, which was returned to his family six months after his death, showed that more than 30 exposure figures and other listings had been corrected in red ink and stamped with personal seals.

Even after he was diagnosed with leukemia, the databook had a stamp indicating permission for him to engage in a job subject to possible radiation exposure and a false report on his participation in nuclear safety education while he was in reality in hospital.

"The workers at the Fukushima nuclear power plant may be aware that they are risking their lives while doing their jobs. However, the state and electric power companies should also think about their families. If I had heard it was 'dangerous,' I would not have sent Nobuyuki to the nuclear power plant," Michiko Shimahashi said.

"The workers who have done nothing wrong should not die. The emergency upper limit should be cut immediately."http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2011/07/fukushima-workers-may-be-heading-for-early-cancer.html

And these are the people that some comrades want to run and expand the nuclear industry.

RED DAVE

ÑóẊîöʼn
29th July 2011, 13:43
So long as the bourgeolisie is in power, it isn't good for humanity.

As long as the bourgeoisie are in power, it's nuclear or fossil fuels as the baseload power source of choice. Building an entirely renewables-based energy economy would require a level of planning and international cooperation the bourgeoisie are incapable of.


Next time an AIDS or cancer cure threatens the future of mankind, let me know.

Not using nuclear would lead to unacceptable emissions levels, with negative and possibly catastrophic consequences. Not that current levels are doing us any good in the first place.

Dr Mindbender
29th July 2011, 13:54
And these are the people that some comrades want to run and expand the nuclear industry.

RED DAVE

Not wanting nuclear power withdrawn =/= wanting the ruling class to run nuclear power.

I don't want the ruling class to run bus companies either but im not calling for the abolishment of buses. Fukushima or not the same logic applies.