Link 1 says in 2007 renewables received 4 times the subsidies that nuclear did. I would imagine that number has increased quite a bit since 2009. That despite the fact that renewables account for a much much smaller fraction of our electricity use. That pretty much shoots down your claim
Here's what it says on link 2's home page
And then a site that titles it's report "Subsidizing Unsustainable Development: Undermining the Earth with Public Funds"
You don't need to go any further. And actually at this point the data you would bring forth would be highly suspect.
Sorry don't bother trying to convince me with leftist propaganda.
As I stated in my previous posts, which you ignored completely, I only offered those links as examples of the difficulty I would experience finding good information. If I do a research article it will be well cited, and will be an honest attempt to find the real truth.
Honestly, the tone of the stuff you've posted here in this thread and in general is such that I doubt that you have any interest whatsoever to learning anything different than what you believe already. You believe that uranium fission is the only way to go, and more importantly, you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or some "leftist liberal namby pamby" idiot. In other words, to you, just the fact that they don't believe what you believe is fact enough for you to know they're wrong, absolutely, incontrovertibly. You're doing the mental equivalent of clapping your hands to your ears and yelling out "Lalalalalalalalala" with your eyes closed.
And that's too bad...
IP: Logged
01:00 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The reason (fission) nuclear makes a good choice as ONE of the energy sources is that a very compact and small amount of fuel, and a single plant can generate huge amounts of electrical power. We can't and shouldn't rely on a single energy source.
Unproven untested pie in the sky energy sources don't come into this discussion for me until they can be proven on a large scale. Yes I am for research. But until a energy source is proven we can not be making plans to step onto a plank of an energy bridge to the future that does not yet exist.
quote
You believe that uranium fission is the only way to go, and more importantly, you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or some "leftist liberal namby pamby" idiot.
Yes I do question those who argue against what seems to be sane and realistic discussions with pie in the sky totally unproven ideas and appear to actually fully believe these are somehow the way to base our current energy needs. Is it that they are truly ignorant of the actual facts or is it that they are delusional about the fringe sciences that their 'facts' are based on?
Honestly I think the fact that fission nuclear is so powerful is part of what makes it dangerous. Just like a V8 car is inherently more dangerous than riding lawn mower. But we need that power and we need it soon. Yes the way I see it, for technology that works, that is available now, it is either coal, maybe natural gas, or nuclear. The technologies other than those big 3 can help, but there is no way they can be implemented on the scale that is needed.
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
Oh, and to head off your enevitable comment about how other sources get subsidies too, I'd be happy to leave the nuclear subsidies where they're at as long as the others such as solar, geothermal, thorium, wind, etc, get matching dollar for dollar subsidies as well.
Dollar for dollar, to equal the playing field, to make it a fair competition.
Is your argument that we should dump 1,267 million into each of those bit part players of our power production? Does it somehow make sense to you that we should be putting huge sums of money into subsidizing technology that puts out a minute parts of our power production? In my mind any reasonable person can see that the federal subsidies are much better spent on technologies that actually do produce vast amounts of power.
btw the sell price of electricity here in Wisconsin is $122.09 per Megawatt-Hour. Remember this is only the subsidy from the government. We of course collectively as taxpayers pay for the subsidies.
quote
US Energy Information Administration website
Did You Know?
The estimated value of production tax credits to wind producers in FY 2007 was $666 million. The benefit was distributed over an estimated 27.7 million megawatthours, making wind power the largest beneficiary of production tax credits among all renewable technologies.
I only offered those links as examples of the difficulty I would experience finding good information. .
I do believe your definition and my definition of "good information" greatly differ.
Yes this technology can be dangerous. Just because it can be dangerous doesn't mean we should not use it. We should but we need to respect it and use it wisely. The Russians did not do that at Chernobyl. We need to learn from the things that have gone wrong at TMI, at Fukushima and elsewhere. By doing so we CAN in reasonable safety harness this energy source to serve mankind.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 04-29-2011).]
... pie in the sky totally unproven ideas ... truly ignorant of the actual facts ...delusional ...fringe sciences ...'facts'
Those are your words that stand out to me. I see now that attempting to prove anything to you other than what you have already chosen to believe is pointless.
Time to move on to greener pastures where knowledge can still grow...
IP: Logged
03:03 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Once again, you say that everyone should get the subsidies, and I say that nobody should, at all. Not a penny should flow from the Government (taxpayers) to a private business at all. Ever. For any reason.
I don't care if they will collapse and put 3/4 of the country out of work, and I don't care if half the country will be out of power if they don't get the subsidies. If the subsidies go away, and the Government steps out of the way (regulating businesses to death) then we will have a more free market place.
More free, not truly free mind you.
Brad
We do have a perverted system of subsidies. I do believe in capitalism but moderated and with restraint. I also believe the government should be moving out of subsidizing business overall. I don't believe government should be all the way out however. I also don't believe, as I would have to think you do, that our government moving from where it is now, to an totally free market and allowing things to collapse is a reasonable and prudent way to go.
I've been in Lithuania and have seen the remnants of failed Communism. I also saw struggling capitalism. I think neither on their own, pure communism or pure capitalism are good stable economic systems. We have seen the failures of both.
What I think we need is the best possible solution. And by that I can't see the best possible solution as unrestrained, unregulated, unprodded or subsidized by government capitalism.
Just my thoughts. I guess that doesn't put me in the totally conservative 'clean plate capitalism' club.
Take my Fiero away. Kick me put of PFF O/T. Damn me to Hell.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 04-29-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:24 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
TOKYO—Japan's chief government spokesman said Saturday that the resignation by a senior science adviser over radiation safety limits for schools around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was over a misunderstanding, while Prime Minister Naoto Kan defended the government's handling of the situation.
Separately, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said two workers who received radiation burns from highly radioactive water in an incident March 24 have received close to the legal annual limit of radiation.
The resignation Friday of University of Tokyo Professor Toshiso Kosako was another embarrassment to the Kan government over its handling of the long-running nuclear-plant crisis. Government officials had described Mr. Kosako at the time of his appointment in mid-March as an expert in the field of radiation safety. Earthquake in Japan
View Interactive
* More photos and interactive graphics
Mr. Kosako, at an emotional news conference Friday, said he was resigning as one of six special advisers to the prime minister because the government was ignoring the laws over how to handle nuclear disasters and taking ad hoc measures that are prolonging the crisis.
In particular, Mr. Kosako called into question the government's radiation safety standards for elementary schools, which he claimed are not in line with international standards.
But chief government spokesman Yukio Edano said Mr. Kosako had misunderstood the government's standard that set the maximum radiation limit for elementary schools in Fukushima Prefecture to 20 millisieverts per year.
"We believe we have firmly complied with the law. There seems to be a misunderstanding," Mr. Edano said, adding that the safety standard doesn't mean children in the area will face an annual radiation level of 20 millisieverts. Children are considered at a much higher risk of developing thyroid conditions from the iodine-131 that is prevalent among the contaminants that have escaped from the plant.
Mr. Kan, speaking in parliament Saturday morning, defended the government's handling of the case.
"The resignation was due to various differences in opinion among the experts. It's extremely regrettable...but I do not think our response was made in an ad hoc manner," he said.
Goshi Hosono, a special adviser to the prime minister on the nuclear crisis, also said the government went through "the most proper" process in line with the advice from Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission. He added that Mr. Kosako's resignation was accepted on Saturday.
A new opinion poll showed that the Japanese public is not satisfied with the government's handling of the crisis. The survey by Kyodo News found that 76% of respondents said that Mr. Kan was not exercising sufficient leadership and 24% said that the embattled prime minister should resign immediately. Mr. Kan had been suffering from low support ratings before the March 11 quake and tsunami although there had been some improvements in the initial weeks after the disaster.
Separately, Mr. Hosono said Tepco will take fresh measures, including the construction of a breakwater to prepare for a massive magnitude 8-level earthquake. A makeshift breakwater is scheduled to be built on the south side of the No. 1-4 nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi complex by mid-June.
Tepco will also aim to complete measures to reinforce earthquake resistance level of the No. 4 nuclear reactor building by the end of July. As additional steps, it will have backup diesel power and fire trucks on higher ground and take other measures to prevent radioactive water from spilling into the ocean in the wake of a series of aftershocks that have continued since the initial quake.
Tepco also said Saturday that two workers, both burned by highly radioactive water, had received close to the 250-millisievert level but hadn't exceeded it. One worker was put at 240.80 millisieverts and the second at 226.62 millisieverts.
Tepco said 19 other workers have exceeded the level of 100 millisieverts in working at the plant since the March 11 crisis began due to the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit the region.
Separately, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare said a tiny amount of radioactive iodine have been found in the breast milk of seven women in Fukushima, Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures although the amount does not pose any health risk to babies.
The amount found ranged from 2.2 to 8.0 becquerels per kilogram of iodine-131, far below the 100 becquerel per kilogram stipulated in the government's safety limit for milk and dairy products. The results were found in a survey of 23 women the ministry carried out from April 24-28.
"During an emotional and teary news conference, Toshiso Kosako, a professor at the University of Tokyo, announced his resignation as senior nuclear adviser to Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan.Kosako said he could not stay on while the government set inappropriate radiation limits for elementary schools near the plant. “I cannot allow this as a scholar,” he said, adding that he is also opposed the government raising the limit for radiation exposure for workers at the plant, according to the CBC." http://www.infowars.com/nuc...er-radiation-levels/
IP: Logged
03:37 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Cabinet nuclear advisor resigns in protest over government response to plant crisis University of Tokyo Professor Toshiso Kosako is pictured during a press conference held at the Diet building on April 29, 2011, following his resignation as a special nuclear advisor to the Cabinet. (Mainichi) University of Tokyo Professor Toshiso Kosako is pictured during a press conference held at the Diet building on April 29, 2011, following his resignation as a special nuclear advisor to the Cabinet. (Mainichi)
A nuclear advisor to the Cabinet has resigned in protest against government stopgap measures that deal with the ongoing nuclear crisis in Fukushima Prefecture.
Toshiso Kosako, 61, a University of Tokyo professor specializing in radiation safety, submitted a letter of resignation to the Prime Minister's Office on April 29.
During a press conference held at the Diet building later that day, Kosako, who was named a special advisor to Prime Minister Naoto Kan on March 16, criticized the government's handling of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant as shortsighted.
In particular, Kosako protested against the government's decision to revise the maximum permissible level of radiation exposure among children up to 20 millisieverts per year, saying, "Should I approve that decision, I would no longer be a researcher. I would not want my children to be exposed to that amount of radiation."
Kosako revealed the Cabinet did not accept his advice that outdoor school activities for elementary and junior high school students near the crippled power station be restricted to prevent them from being exposed to over 1 millisievert of radiation per year.
"It is quite rare for nuclear power plant workers dealing with radioactive materials to be exposed to 20 millisieverts of radiation per year. I cannot allow infants and children to be exposed to such high levels of radiation from an academic as well as humanitarian point of view."
He also pointed out that the government was slow in applying the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI) and disclosing its data, even though nuclear safety guidelines stipulate the system be implemented immediately in an emergency. "The government has ignored the law and taken stopgap measures, failing to bring the crisis under control promptly," he said.
Seiki Soramoto, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) member of the House of Representatives, also attended the press conference and said, "I want to drive the situation in the right direction by telling my fellow lawmakers that it's a mistake that the government set the radiation exposure limit for children at 20 millisieverts per year."
Soramoto, one of the DPJ lawmakers close to former party head Ichiro Ozawa, had been working on the issue in collaboration with Kosako.
During a House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting on April 30, Kan, who appointed six nuclear experts and others as special advisors on the Fukushima crisis after the March 11 disasters, responded, "The government has taken into account the opinions of special advisors in making the decision. I don't believe our response was shortsighted."
Tepco also said Saturday that two workers, both burned by highly radioactive water, had received close to the 250-millisievert level but hadn't exceeded it. One worker was put at 240.80 millisieverts and the second at 226.62 millisieverts.
Tepco said 19 other workers have exceeded the level of 100 millisieverts in working at the plant since the March 11 crisis began due to the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit the region.
Well that pretty much kills the story that the Fukushima 50 are all going to die of radiation poisoning.
IP: Logged
08:32 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
URGENT: Radiation leaks from fuel rods suspected at Tsuruga plant: local gov't
FUKUI, Japan, May 2, Kyodo
Leaks of radioactive materials from fuel rods have been suspected at a nuclear power plant in Tsuruga, the Fukui prefectural government said Monday, citing a rise in density of the toxic substances in coolant water. http://english.kyodonews.jp...s/2011/05/89008.html
The workers know what their dosimeters said. They know what their accumulated dose is. It is the responsibility of the workers also to help control what they are exposed to. If they go over the limits they can no longer work in the hot areas of the plant.
The workers don't want to be lax with their exposure. The plant's owners don't want to be lax with their workers exposure.
IP: Logged
12:48 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
May 3 (Reuters) - Workers at Japan's crippled nuclear plant began putting up equipment on Tuesday to allow the start of repairs to its cooling systems, key to bringing reactors under control after they were badly damaged in the March 11 quake and tsunami.
Soldiers moved to within 10 km (6 miles) of the Fukushima complex to search for those still missing following the disaster, the first time the military is conducting searches in this area since the plant began leaking radiation after the disaster hit.
Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) has said it may take the rest of the year to bring the nuclear plant back under control.
The company said it had begun constructing special tents at the entrance to turbine buildings so workers can move in and out. It is also installing fans with filters at the No.1 reactor to reduce radiation inside to one-twentieth of current levels within days.
"We want to suck out the air in the building and use the filter to remove radiation from the dust," TEPCO spokesman Junichi Matsumoto told reporters.
The magnitude 9.0 quake and massive tsunami that followed knocked out the cooling systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, 240 km north of Tokyo, causing it to leak radiation.
The natural disaster was the worst to hit Japan since World War Two and killed about 14,700 people, left some 11,000 more missing and destroyed tens of thousands of homes.
As the search for the missing continued, 560 Japanese Self-Defense Force troops began working within a 10 km radius of Fukushima Daiichi, the Defense Ministry said, the first time they have come so close for searches since the crisis began.
People living within a 20 km radius of the plant were evacuated and banned from returning home on April 21 due to concerns about radiation levels.
Soil containing radioactive materials up to 1,000 times the normal level were found from the bottom of the sea near the nuclear plant, TEPCO's Matsumoto said on Tuesday.
Unpopular Prime Minister Naoto Kan is facing increasing calls to quit over his handling of the crisis.
The latest blow for Kan came when an adviser on the nuclear crisis quit in protest over the government's decision to set the annual radiation limit at 20 millisieverts per year for school children in Fukushima, a level the adviser said was unacceptably high. (Reporting by Hugh Lawson, Mari Saito and Yoko Kubota; editing by Jonathan Thatcher and Miral Fahmy) http://www.reuters.com/arti...dUSL3E7G32QE20110503
The workers know what their dosimeters said. They know what their accumulated dose is. It is the responsibility of the workers also to help control what they are exposed to. If they go over the limits they can no longer work in the hot areas of the plant.
The workers don't want to be lax with their exposure. The plant's owners don't want to be lax with their workers exposure.
You know what they say about wanting into one hand and defecating into the other, and then seeing which fills up faster?
I remember reading earlier that some workers didn't have dosimeters available to them, and another story about how the workers stayed on knowing they were being exposed out of some sense of duty and honor. Personally, if I was a worker and they told me to go to work without a dosimeter or asked me to go over the limit I'd refuse, and if they fired me or laid me off as a result I'd be looking at law suit city.
Edit to add: I do not accept "raising the exposure limits" as a valid way to make the problem seems less severe. In fact, I would consider it to be criminal.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 05-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:21 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
They were running short of dosimeters and would send a group with less than one dosimeter per person. That groups dosimeter reading would be used for the group. So while each person didn't have a dosimeter everyone did have their radiation level monitored. They didn't send people out into the plant without some way to measure the radiation.
The "story about how the workers stayed on knowing they were being (OVER) exposed out of some sense of duty and honor" was a hearsay story. It wasn't from someone who was actually involved. The story didn't fit with the rest of the stories that were coming from the plant. No need to raise dose limits if everyone is getting grossly over exposed.
quote
Personally, if I was a worker and they told me to go to work without a dosimeter or asked me to go over the limit I'd refuse, and if they fired me or laid me off as a result I'd be looking at law suit city.
Considering the fact based stories regarding the doses that were received by the workers it sounds like only the three women were over exposed.
quote
Edit to add: I do not accept "raising the exposure limits" as a valid way to make the problem seems less severe. In fact, I would consider it to be criminal.
Criminal is defined as in violation of the law. So you are saying changing the law is somehow in violation of the law?
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 05-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:03 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
The "story about how the workers stayed on knowing they were being (OVER) exposed out of some sense of duty and honor" was a hearsay story. It wasn't from someone who was actually involved. The story didn't fit with the rest of the stories that were coming from the plant. No need to raise dose limits if everyone is getting grossly over exposed.
Just thought I'd mention I saw a live interview of a firefighter that was one of the ones spraying down the reactor after the diesel backup and battery backups for the cooling system failed. He said he knew being exposed was bad, but duty that it needed to be done kept that out of his mind.
Just thought I'd mention I saw a live interview of a firefighter that was one of the ones spraying down the reactor after the diesel backup and battery backups for the cooling system failed. He said he knew being exposed was bad, but duty that it needed to be done kept that out of his mind.
Shhh...that's hearsay...
IP: Logged
01:50 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 24108 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Just thought I'd mention I saw a live interview of a firefighter that was one of the ones spraying down the reactor after the diesel backup and battery backups for the cooling system failed. He said he knew being exposed was bad, but duty that it needed to be done kept that out of his mind.
This reminds me a lot of that movie "K-19 Widowmaker" which was a loosly based-on-reality movie of the events that happened with one of Russia's nuclear submarines.
Pretty good movie...
IP: Logged
01:53 PM
PFF
System Bot
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
If what you want is just to believe more of what you already believe, then any piece of "information" can be used. I'd rather base my opinions on facts.
It's the same thing I said when the mother story came out weeks ago.
If what you want is just to believe more of what you already believe, then any piece of "information" can be used. I'd rather base my opinions on facts.
It's the same thing I said when the mother story came out weeks ago.
You'll just ignore the video, or downplay it, or play semantic games to avoid giving it any credit. It doesn't fit your paradigm, so it's out. The Fukushima 60,000 are living the paradigm now...
IP: Logged
05:56 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Well considering none of the males working at the plant have received radiation levels that were above acceptable limits I would question what his dosimeter said. I also would question what he means by "He said he knew being exposed was bad".
IP: Logged
08:45 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
If what you want is just to believe more of what you already believe, then any piece of "information" can be used. I'd rather base my opinions on facts.
It's the same thing I said when the mother story came out weeks ago.
I like facts too. I'm not confident that TEPCO is a valid source of unbiased information. Only time will tell if the levels prove to be lethal.
IP: Logged
09:01 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
"Tepco right now is very unpopular among the Japanese people," said Akihisa Nagashima, a lawmaker with the ruling Democratic Party of Japan. "The big problem is it is too big to fail."
NOTICE THE FOLLOWING IS FROM A JAPANESE BLOG, SO IT IS WHAT IT IS!!!! /disclaimer
Saturday, April 30, 2011 #Fukushima I Nuke Plant: Ishikawa of JNTI Talks about Reactor Core Conditions
More on 77-year-old Michio Ishikawa of the Japan Nuclear Technology Institute on the situation at Fukushima I Nuke Plant, as he appeared on Asahi TV on April 29.
As I watched the video, I started to like Mr. Ishikawa, who continues to believe in the safety of nuclear power generation. He didn't mince his words, and said what they are doing at Fukushima I Nuke Plant is not working. That surprised some, including the host of the show, as Ishikawa is known as a strong proponent for the nuclear power generation and the nuclear industry.
I watched the segment (video No.2 out of 11) where he discussed the situation at Fukushima I Nuke Plant, particularly about the condition of the reactor core.
Here's what I'd add to the snippets on my previous post. (My summary translation of what Mr. Ishikawa said, not literal; my comment in square bracket):
About TEPCO's "roadmap:
"I believe what they are trying to achieve after 9 months is to cool the reactor cores and solidify them so that no radioactive materials can escape. But they are just doing peripheral tricks like water entombment and nitrogen gas injection. Nitrogen gas, it's dangerous, by the way.
"What they must do is to cool the reactor cores, and there's no way around it. It has to be done somehow."
About the condition of the reactor cores:
"I believe the fuel rods are completely melted. They may already have escaped the pressure vessel. Yes, they say 55% or 30%, but I believe they are all melted down. When the fuel rods melt, they melt from the middle part on down.
(Showing the diagram) "I think the temperature inside the melted core is 2000 degrees to 2000 and several hundred degrees Celsius. A crust has formed on the surface where the water hits. Decay heat is 2000 to 3000 kilowatts, and through the cracks on the crust the radioactive materials (mostly noble gas and iodine) are escaping into the air.
"Volatile gas has almost all escaped from the reactor by now.
"The water [inside the pressure vessel] is highly contaminated with uranium, plutonium, cesium, cobalt, in the concentration we've never seen before.
"My old colleague contacted me and shared his calculation with me. At the decay heat of 2000 kilowatt... There's a substance called cobalt 60. Highly radioactive, needs 1 to 1.5 meter thick shields. It kills people at 1000 curies. He calculated that there are 10 million curies of cobalt-60 in the reactor core. If 10% of cobalt-60 in the core dissolve into water, it's 1 million curies."
[He's an old-timer so he's used to curie instead of becquerel as a unit. 1 curie equals 3.7 x 10^10 becquerels (37,000,000,000 becquerels or 37 gigabecquerels). 10 million curies equals 370,000 terabecquerels, and 1 million curies equals 37,000 terabecquerels. I used this conversion table. Tell me I'm wrong! Cobalt-60 alone would make a Level 7 disaster...]
"They (TEPCO) want to circulate this highly contaminated water to cool the reactor core. Even if they are able to set up the circulation system, it will be a very difficult task to shield the radiation. It will be a very difficult work to build the system, but it has to be done.
"It is imperative to know the current condition of the reactor cores. It is my assumption [that the cores have melted], but wait one day, and we have water more contaminated with radioactive materials. This is a war, and we need to build a "bridgehead" at the reactor itself instead of fooling around with the turbine buildings or transporting contaminated water."
[As Ishikawa explains, a notable opponent of nuclear power, Tetsunari Iida (executive director of the Institute of Sustainable Energy Policy and Kyoto University graduate majoring in nuclear science) nods in deep agreement.]
About "war" at Fukushima I Nuke Plant:
"Take the debris clean-up job for example. They are picking up the debris and putting them in containers, as if this is the peacetime normal operation. This is a war. They should dig a hole somewhere and bury the radioactive debris and clean up later. What's important is to clear the site, using the emergency measures. Build a bridgehead to the reactor.
"The line of command is not clear, whether it is the government, TEPCO, or Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
"Look squarely at the reactors and find out the true situation. [Trying to do something with] the turbine buildings is nothing but a caricature [a joke, a manga, a diversion]."
The show's host says "But wait a minute, Mr. Ishikawa, you are a proponent of nuclear power and we expected to hear from you that everything is going well at Fukushima..."
Mr. Ishikawa answers, "Well, if I'm allowed to tell a lie..."
Now, Mr. Tetsunari Iida speaks, agreeing to Mr. Ishikawa's "war" analogy:
"I totally agree with Mr. Ishikawa's assessment of the plant, and that this is a war. The government simply orders TEPCO to "do it". But it is like the Imperial General Headquarters (大本営) on the eve of the Sea of Japan Naval Battle during the Russo-Japanese War [in 1905] ordering merchant ship TEPCO to attack [the imperial Russian navy].
"The government should appoint a commander. TEPCO has a limit as a private business. No one knows what to do. We have to seek the advice from the best and the brightest in the world."
Mr. Hasegawa of Chunichi Shinbun jumps in, and says "We took the numbers from the government like 30% core melt as true, and went from there. But then Mr. Ishikawa says it's a total melt."
Then, Kohei Otsuka, the Vice Minister of Health and Welfare and politician from the ruling party (DPJ), sitting right next to Mr. Ishikawa, butts in, and warns everyone:
"Since none of us knows for sure the condition of the reactor cores, we shouldn't speculate on a national TV."
Mr. Hasegawa overrides the politician, and says "The real problem is that what no one knows is presented to us every day as if it is a fact, like 30% core melt in the chart."
Hahahahahahahahaha.
I wish Mr. Ishikawa had punched the light-weight politician in the face. At least he should have laughed at him.
For a fact. TEPCO and the Japanese government should assume the best case scenario, ignoring unfounded allegations such as the one above about the cores being melted, and do all planning and decision-making based on that. Remember, when dealing with nuclear disasters, what you don't know won't kill you.
IP: Logged
11:14 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
For a fact. TEPCO and the Japanese government should assume the best case scenario, ignoring unfounded allegations such as the one above about the cores being melted, and do all planning and decision-making based on that. Remember, when dealing with nuclear disasters, what you don't know won't kill you.
What they should do is not assume any unknown is somehow a fact. They need to proceed in a prudent manner. They need to take safety precautions for what is unknown.
When they establish an exclusion zone, they do that because the radiation level in that area is unknown, and the future radiation level in that area may change. For people to assume that means anyone in that area WILL be exposed to harmful radiation is incorrect thinking. People (I don't know who, hmm) who assume that the exclusion zone will be uninhabitable for 1 million years are quite incorrect. Does that mean Japan should let people go running into the exclusion zone before finding out what the true radiation levels are? Of course not.
Is there a breach of the zirconium cladding? Maybe. Did the core melt or partially melt? Maybe. Should the people involved in the situation act in a prudent manner? Yes. Should they assume things that aren't facts just because they were said by someone? No.
quote
"Since none of us knows for sure the condition of the reactor cores..."
is still true.
quote
"Take the debris clean-up job for example. They are picking up the debris and putting them in containers, as if this is the peacetime normal operation. This is a war. They should dig a hole somewhere and bury the radioactive debris and clean up later. What's important is to clear the site, using the emergency measures. Build a bridgehead to the reactor.
And risk contaminating the ground water even more? Putting the debris in a water and air tight or at least restricted container makes a whole lot more sense.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 05-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:03 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Proof we were being lied too, the Japanese government thought it was going to be the worse case scenario early on and told everyone it was a minor incident...
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Worst case feared in early hours of Fukushima crisis Kyodo
The government assumed a worst-case scenario of "significant public exposure" to radiation when workers were struggling to bring a nuclear reactor under control at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant a day after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, Kyodo News learned Tuesday.
The scenario assumed the containment vessel of the No. 1 reactor — the last line of defense to contain radioactive materials — would be damaged and people at the border of the plant's compound would be exposed to several sieverts of radiation, a potentially lethal level, if the workers failed to reduce pressure within the containment vessel by venting steam, according to sources in the government, in Tokyo Electric Power Co. and documents.
Around 10 percent of people exposed to 1 sievert over a short time suffer nausea and tiredness, and half of those exposed to 4 sieverts die within 30 days.
Due to trouble with one of the two vents of the containment vessel at the Fukushima complex's No. 1 reactor, it took 5? hours for Tepco to successfully release steam from the vessel.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency assumed the failure to vent the steam could increase pressure inside the container to three times the design limit by 11 p.m. on March 12.
The high pressure would have burst the container and a huge amount of radioactive iodine, cesium and other substances would have been released into the atmosphere, posing "a risk of significant public exposure within 3 to 5 km from the power plant," depending on weather conditions, the agency assumed. http://search.japantimes.co...in/nn20110505a2.html
I don't know what the big deal is. Cesium, Plutonium, Iodine, all those radioactive isotopes, they're not dangerous at all unless you die from them. As long as you don't die you'll be fine!
IP: Logged
05:21 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
I agree, but in a situation like this, I would hope they would error on the side of "worst case scenario" instead of acting like they have it all under control and nobody should worry.
IP: Logged
08:37 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
I agree, but in a situation like this, I would hope they would error on the side of "worst case scenario" instead of acting like they have it all under control and nobody should worry.
They still aren't letting people back into the exclusion zone correct?
They still aren't letting people back into the exclusion zone correct?
As far as I know, the people who where kicked out of their homes, businesses, and farms 56 days ago still aren't being allowed back to start picking up the pieces of their lives.
I was looking for the latest news on whether the hundreds of radiologically contaminated corpses rotting around Fukushima where being dealt with yet, and stumbled across this bit of info:
In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks, such as its 1956 warning: ''Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation.''
After 1959, the organisation made no more statements on health and radioactivity.
What happened?
On May 28, 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. A clause of this agreement says the WHO effectively grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA - a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. Its founding papers state: ''The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world.''
Another part of the article brought up the point that external irradiation is very much different than internal irradiation, and that simply using external radiation as the most important measurement of radiation danger can be a misleading way to characterize the actual dangers involved in cases like this.
The article itself is moderately anti-nuclear, so I'm sure folks will find the 2% that's wrong to discredit the 98% that's right. The Fukushima 60,000 probably are more concerned with the 98% than they are the 2%.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 05-05-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:33 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 24108 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Another part of the article brought up the point that external irradiation is very much different than internal irradiation, and that simply using external radiation as the most important measurement of radiation danger can be a misleading way to characterize the actual dangers involved in cases like this.
The article itself is moderately anti-nuclear, so I'm sure folks will find the 2% that's wrong to discredit the 98% that's right. The Fukushima 60,000 probably are more concerned with the 98% than they are the 2%.
At the risk of having to read all thirteen pages of this, I figured I'll just ask outright...
Do you support Nuclear energy? I think you said a few pages down you supported something similar but that it just never took on?
I support whatever is the most cost effective and environmentally friendly form of energy based on location. So for example, places that have geo-thermal energy that's readily available... then steam power is what we should be using (I think there's only a couple of places, one in Las Vegas???).
Wind power helps, I know... but doesn't do all that much in the grand scheme of things. Solar of course... I'd like to see more homes come with a series of panels when built new... I would even potentially support a bill that mandated new homes have a certain level of solar panels on them. At the very least, it would reduce the amount of power used.
IP: Logged
12:44 PM
RandomTask Member
Posts: 4540 From: Alexandria, VA Registered: Apr 2005
I'll post this here. I sat through a presentation the other week on this; [wrote this after I attended]
. . . Just sat through a two hour meeting with Howard Sobel (PE), a leading expert in nuclear plant design and crisis management. Meeting was aimed at specifically talking about this incident. Some notes I jotted down -
The workers had their dosage limits raised to 250mSv. Their operational limits are the same as our standards in the U.S. During times of crisis, we raise our "Oh **** " limit to 500mSv. Japan raised theirs to half (250mSv) and no-one has exceeded that yet.
The people that we're exposed to the radioactive water were idiots and not working under guidelines. They were specifically told to wear protective boots in the water they were in.
The NRC mandates the following criteria that a plant must survive; Loss of Recirculating water. (They had both low pressure and high pressure shower core injectors) Loss of Feedwater (They had plenty backup) Loss of Power (They had both EDG's and 8 hour battery backup).
Restoring power wasn't easy. They couldn't just run a line to other districts to get power. Japan has a funny thing we're they run 50hz and 60hz. The generators they eventually shipped in were hooked up but unfortunately the employee's almost foolishly assumed all the electrical equipment would still work. As a note, the plant has 19' sea wall. They were hit by a 46' tsunami - so near 3 stories of salt water wrecked all the electrical equipment.
These were MK-1 BWR reactors. The upside down bulb (wet well) was essentially the primary containment. The reactor vessels have NOT been breached, it hasn't even left the 6" steel. They predict it to be identical to what happened on TMI but just 3X since 3 reactors. Given time to let everything cool down they will go open up the vessels.
Reactors 5 and 6 were having the same issues but due to location, they could get the EDG's (emergency diesel generators) powered up on unit 6 which in turn they used to power unit 5 as well and get them under control.
Pumping in seawater was a last ditch effort but the only option they had. They had to get rid of the low radioactivity water (pumped into the ocean) so they could make room for the highly radioactive stuff that they needed to store.
The problem in the storage pools was mainly unit 4. It was just shut down two weeks prior and the fuel was taken out and put into the storage pool. This stuff had a lot of residual heat in it (compared to fuel that's been sitting longer - it cools in an inverse fashion). Immediately after scram, the units pump out about 7% of their normal power which in thermal is 2450MWth (~170MWth). So they had fuel with a lot of residual heat next to the brand new fuel (lots of potential) right next to it. U.S. plants operate differently. Where as Fukashimi had all 400+ rods out, we cycle just the ones we're replacing to get back to desired thermal density (usually around 20 or so) They are currently at about .02%. Due to having pumped in sea water, on reactor 2, they're afraid they plugged a lot of the cooling area's with salt. They're pumping the **** out of it and have very inefficient cooling but still cooling it down. They also flooded the wet well area to about have the height of the reactor vessel.
There was an 8" crack on one of the Taurus's due to an explosion. I believe he said they got that plugged up.
They chose to vent to atmosphere due to the pressure. The pressure was due to the Zyrconium shells reacting with the water which creates heat(which perpetuates the reaction) + Zirconium oxide and lots of hydrogen gas. They first vent to the wet well (as designed) they then vented to the taurus which it did. The steam was meant to condensate there which it did. Eventually once that reached around 60psi, they had to vent to the dry well. This eventually reach its limits for pressure so it was either "let it blow up or vent some of" which they had to. They vented it into the secondary containment area (above the vessel) once it reach >8%, it exploded causing damage. U.S. reactors had to be updated circa 2001 with whats called 'hard lines'. These allow the venting of the gas through combustors = less of an explosive risk.
They HAVE found neutron emitting contamination OUTSIDE the plant but they think this is more likely due to old weapons testing as otherwise it would indicate that the reactor vessels exploded.
All media has been sensationalizing the crap out of this. 9 times out of 10 of 'experts' you see aren't experts in the field and are picked by the news outlets to say something as to generate ratings. Also, most of the information they give is wrong.
Also Germany is stupid for shutting down their program. They get billions in tax revenue a year from nuclear taxes and get a large portion of their energy from Nuclear. Now they'll have to pay france for energy (who makes almost 80% of their power from nuclear).
IP: Logged
12:48 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
I'll post this here. I sat through a presentation the other week on this; [wrote this after I attended]
. . . Just sat through a two hour meeting with Howard Sobel (PE), a leading expert in nuclear plant design and crisis management. Meeting was aimed at specifically talking about this incident. Some notes I jotted down -
The workers had their dosage limits raised to 250mSv. Their operational limits are the same as our standards in the U.S. During times of crisis, we raise our "Oh **** " limit to 500mSv. Japan raised theirs to half (250mSv) and no-one has exceeded that yet.
The people that we're exposed to the radioactive water were idiots and not working under guidelines. They were specifically told to wear protective boots in the water they were in.
The NRC mandates the following criteria that a plant must survive; Loss of Recirculating water. (They had both low pressure and high pressure shower core injectors) Loss of Feedwater (They had plenty backup) Loss of Power (They had both EDG's and 8 hour battery backup).
Restoring power wasn't easy. They couldn't just run a line to other districts to get power. Japan has a funny thing we're they run 50hz and 60hz. The generators they eventually shipped in were hooked up but unfortunately the employee's almost foolishly assumed all the electrical equipment would still work. As a note, the plant has 19' sea wall. They were hit by a 46' tsunami - so near 3 stories of salt water wrecked all the electrical equipment.
These were MK-1 BWR reactors. The upside down bulb (wet well) was essentially the primary containment. The reactor vessels have NOT been breached, it hasn't even left the 6" steel. They predict it to be identical to what happened on TMI but just 3X since 3 reactors. Given time to let everything cool down they will go open up the vessels.
Reactors 5 and 6 were having the same issues but due to location, they could get the EDG's (emergency diesel generators) powered up on unit 6 which in turn they used to power unit 5 as well and get them under control.
Pumping in seawater was a last ditch effort but the only option they had. They had to get rid of the low radioactivity water (pumped into the ocean) so they could make room for the highly radioactive stuff that they needed to store.
The problem in the storage pools was mainly unit 4. It was just shut down two weeks prior and the fuel was taken out and put into the storage pool. This stuff had a lot of residual heat in it (compared to fuel that's been sitting longer - it cools in an inverse fashion). Immediately after scram, the units pump out about 7% of their normal power which in thermal is 2450MWth (~170MWth). So they had fuel with a lot of residual heat next to the brand new fuel (lots of potential) right next to it. U.S. plants operate differently. Where as Fukashimi had all 400+ rods out, we cycle just the ones we're replacing to get back to desired thermal density (usually around 20 or so) They are currently at about .02%. Due to having pumped in sea water, on reactor 2, they're afraid they plugged a lot of the cooling area's with salt. They're pumping the **** out of it and have very inefficient cooling but still cooling it down. They also flooded the wet well area to about have the height of the reactor vessel.
There was an 8" crack on one of the Taurus's due to an explosion. I believe he said they got that plugged up.
They chose to vent to atmosphere due to the pressure. The pressure was due to the Zyrconium shells reacting with the water which creates heat(which perpetuates the reaction) + Zirconium oxide and lots of hydrogen gas. They first vent to the wet well (as designed) they then vented to the taurus which it did. The steam was meant to condensate there which it did. Eventually once that reached around 60psi, they had to vent to the dry well. This eventually reach its limits for pressure so it was either "let it blow up or vent some of" which they had to. They vented it into the secondary containment area (above the vessel) once it reach >8%, it exploded causing damage. U.S. reactors had to be updated circa 2001 with whats called 'hard lines'. These allow the venting of the gas through combustors = less of an explosive risk.
They HAVE found neutron emitting contamination OUTSIDE the plant but they think this is more likely due to old weapons testing as otherwise it would indicate that the reactor vessels exploded.
All media has been sensationalizing the crap out of this. 9 times out of 10 of 'experts' you see aren't experts in the field and are picked by the news outlets to say something as to generate ratings. Also, most of the information they give is wrong.
Also Germany is stupid for shutting down their program. They get billions in tax revenue a year from nuclear taxes and get a large portion of their energy from Nuclear. Now they'll have to pay france for energy (who makes almost 80% of their power from nuclear).
Germany was stupid for shutting down their program, decisions based in fear are always stupid. As for the reactors not being breached, thats up for debate, no one knows for sure the condition of the reactors or their containment vessels.
