The end of the empire of Japan

bud · March 23, 2011

Let goto Japan to get some accurate information:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110324a1.html

Gee. Every few years we have boil water adviseries in Vancouver. I don't recall those being called a disaster. Annoying. But not a disaster. Why is this any different?

it's not a disaster, but i still would not allow a child to drink it. heck, i wouldn't drink it either unless if i had no other choice.

curious, if you have a child, would you be okay with him/her drinking the water or vegetables which have high level of i-131?

TimG · March 24, 2011

it's not a disaster, but i still would not allow a child to drink it. heck, i wouldn't drink it either unless if i had no other choice.

But if you had no choice you could drink and neither you nor your child would suffer any ill effects. That is the point you are missing.

At this point, it is clear the nuclear incident is causing inconvenience for residents in the immediate area. This means it is more serious than I originally expected and it could get worse. However, this inconviences will be temporary - 8 weeks at most and the inconviences are nothing compared to life living in an economy depended on the wind and the sun.

Nuclear power comes with risks but they are worth living with in order to gain the benefits they offer of clean base load power. We make these risk vs. benefit choices all of the time when it comes everything from vehicles to identity cards. On unfortunately, common sense seems to get tossed out the window the minute we talk about radiation.

Edited March 24, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · March 24, 2011

But if you had no choice you could drink and neither you nor your child would suffer any ill effects. That is the point you are missing.

Eventhough the authorities said it was safe at the start, and then told people to use caution, and then told people that the water is not safe for babies, and the food IS contaminated, that is why it was banned.

At this point, it is clear the nuclear incident is causing inconvenience for residents in the immediate area.

An inconvenience? Ya think?

This means it is more serious than I originally expected and it could get worse.

Welcome to two weeks ago.

However, this inconviences will be temporary - 8 weeks at most and the inconviences are nothing compared to life living in an economy depended on the wind and the sun.

8 weeks eh? You've heard the reports it will take 5+ years to rebuild those areas right?

Nuclear power comes with risks but they are worth living with in order to gain the benefits they offer of clean base load power.

Define clean?

We make these risk vs. benefit choices all of the time when it comes everything from vehicles to identity cards. On unfortunately, common sense seems to get tossed out the window the minute we talk about radiation.

No, caution was tossed out when dealing with this incident and the radiation exposure. Like you said, it's worse than you expected.

TimG · March 24, 2011

Eventhough the authorities said it was safe at the start, and then told people to use caution, and then told people that the water is not safe for babies, and the food IS contaminated, that is why it was banned.

Authorities change their recommendations as new information becomes available. This is normal. There is a difference between being banned and unsafe. And even if there is a risk you must compare this indicident to things like boil water adviseries in Vancouver. The radioactivity has already returned to normal in the affected water treatment plants.

8 weeks eh? You've heard the reports it will take 5+ years to rebuild those areas right?

We are talking radiation - not tsunami damage. The fact that it will take longer to restore normality supports my point that the nuclear incident is an inconvenience.

No, caution was tossed out when dealing with this incident and the radiation exposure.

Why? Cause you say so? We don't make policy decisions to placate the paranoid. We make should make policy decisions based on a sober analysis of the facts. So far, these facts show the effect of the incident will be confined to the area around the plant.

GostHacked · March 24, 2011

Authorities change their recommendations as new information becomes available. This is normal. There is a difference between being banned and unsafe. And even if there is a risk you must compare this indicident to things like boil water adviseries in Vancouver. The radioactivity has already returned to normal in the affected water treatment plants.

I'll call bullshit on that. The authorities really have no idea how much damage has been done, and how much more damage will be sustained. I mean having 4 cooling towers blow their tops should have been a good indicator to ANYONE that it is serious.

We are talking radiation - not tsunami damage. The fact that it will take longer to restore normality supports my point that the nuclear incident is an inconvenience.

Yes and radiation has more long term effects than a tsunami. Are you going with Ann Coulter's line where she says, radiation is good for you?

Why? Cause you say so?

No, because some of us are not fooled by the information that we have been given. The information that keeps changing because it was all downplayed from the start. And as some said, it was not to get the public in a panic. Information was kept from the public, if they had that information they would be able to make a better decision on what to do next. Instead they waited for the government and authorities to say .. OK IT'S BAD, when it's really too late, the damage has been done.

We don't make policy decisions to placate the paranoid.

You can never bee too paranoid when it comes to uranium and plutonium and cesium radiation and contamination.

We make should make policy decisions based on a sober analysis of the facts. So far, these facts show the effect of the incident will be confined to the area around the plant.

The effects have already spread beyond the plant. That much we do know . Tokyo's water supply is proof of that. The plant was right on the ocean, the amount of damage to the ocean area around the nuclear plant has yet to be determined.

TimG · March 24, 2011

I'll call bullshit on that. The authorities really have no idea how much damage has been done, and how much more damage will be sustained.

I agree that nobody really knows what the final toll will be but that does not justify your hyperbole today.

I mean having 4 cooling towers blow their tops should have been a good indicator to ANYONE that it is serious.

Of course it is serious. But the question is what does it mean in the long term. So far the answer is "not much".

Yes and radiation has more long term effects than a tsunami.

It really depends on the type of radiation. So far, the only radiation detected has been iodine which is harmless after 8 weeks.

No, because some of us are not fooled by the information that we have been given.

You don't believe anything unless it tells you the scary stories you want to hear. The fact is there is no information being hidden. The authorities simply don't have the information and are now collecting it and reporting problems as they are found.

The effects have already spread beyond the plant. That much we do know . Tokyo's water supply is proof of that. The plant was right on the ocean, the amount of damage to the ocean area around the nuclear plant has yet to be determined.

More likely nothing significant. The Tokyo water supply is a temporary problem that has already cleared up but they are keeping an eye on it.

TimG · March 24, 2011

Some thoughts on the radiation limits which are triggering these warnings:

An analogy would be to post a 0.5 mile per hour speed limit on the interstate highways as a needed safety measure, and then argue that driving at 50 mph is horribly dangerous because it exceeds the recommended safe speed by a hundred-fold.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/warning-whiplash-with-radiation-in-the-news/

WIP · March 25, 2011

It is starting to become apparent now that we have outside analysis, that the TEP and Japanese Government have been lying and misleading the public about the amount of radiation that is being emitted from the damaged nuclear facility:

Fukushima radioactive fallout nears Chernobyl levels

Japan's damaged nuclear plant in Fukushima has been emitting radioactive iodine and caesium at levels approaching those seen in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Austrian researchers have used a worldwide network of radiation detectors – designed to spot clandestine nuclear bomb tests – to show that iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73 per cent of those seen after the 1986 disaster. The daily amount of caesium-137 released from Fukushima Daiichi is around 60 per cent of the amount released from Chernobyl.

We are also learning that it is strongly suspected that there has been a core breach at one of the reactors:

Dangerous breach suspected at Japan nuke site

Other analysts suspect that a breach is possible at two other reactors as well. As mentioned in previous posts, the effects of radiation are cumulative, and the situation at the damaged reactors and spent fuel containment tanks doesn't appear close to being brought under control. The Government has so far, only called for evacuation of a small area outside of the plant:

Radiation Spread From Japanese Nuclear Power Plant Continues

On the outside, steam continued to rise Friday from several reactor buildings at the Fukushima-1 nuclear facility in northeastern Japan. Inside, work continued to try to bring automated cooling systems back on line that would help prevent an even potentially worse spread of radiation from the severely damaged complex.

Japan's government has recommended that people living between 20 and 30 kilometers from the facility leave their homes, but no mandatory evacuation is being issued for that zone.

Next question is: have they already waited too long to conduct a wider evacuation away from the danger zone?

GostHacked · March 25, 2011

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/25/japan.nuclear.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

Extending the voluntary zone to 30 KMs. And could lead to mandatory. It should have been mandatory from the start. Better to be safe than sorry.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/25/japan-nuclear-plant-core.html

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan told the country Friday that the situation at the plant remains "grave and serious."
In a televised address, he warned "we are not in a position where we can be optimistic. We must treat every development with the utmost care."

I agree with him, however, it may be too late for many who have already been exposed to the radiation. But everything is fine right? everything is good right? The food and the milk and the water is safe right?

no1ninja · March 25, 2011

Sources now are pointing to a breach. Drudgereport is running a 10,000X normal rediation headline.

I don't understand why posters are so invested in saying that this is nothing out of the ordinary.

I doubt most nations would willingly want to spook their citizens, unless... there was some underlying truth to the severity of this incident.

(kind of silly to say the government is wrong, the media is wrong, but a poster that has not left his pc thousands of miles away is of course correct.)

Edited March 25, 2011 by no1ninja

eyeball · March 25, 2011

I don't understand why posters are so invested in saying that this is nothing out of the ordinary.

I think it's largely an ideological predisposition.

bush_cheney2004 · March 25, 2011

I think it's largely an ideological predisposition.

No doubt....the actual death toll from the earthquake and tsunami are nothing compared to contaminated spinach and dairy products! [/sarcasm}

Bonam · March 25, 2011

No doubt....the actual death toll from the earthquake and tsunami are nothing compared to contaminated spinach and dairy products! [/sarcasm}

Yeah that's what amazes me... the extent to which the public has fixated on the nuclear issue, when it has caused few if any casualties, while the earthquake and tsunami deathtoll is now over 10,000 and the economic damage approaches half a trillion dollars, possibly the largest of any natural disaster in history. People have an irrational derangement regarding the word "nuclear". Somehow, a millisievert of radiation dose will capture attention more than miles of beaches littered in bloated corpses.

no1ninja · March 25, 2011

Yeah that's what amazes me... the extent to which the public has fixated on the nuclear issue, when it has caused few if any casualties, while the earthquake and tsunami deathtoll is now over 10,000 and the economic damage approaches half a trillion dollars, possibly the largest of any natural disaster in history. People have an irrational derangement regarding the word "nuclear". Somehow, a millisievert of radiation dose will capture attention more than miles of beaches littered in bloated corpses.

Hmmm... let me explain it for you. One is man made, and the other is nature.

One we can control and the other we can't.

Edited March 25, 2011 by no1ninja

Bonam · March 25, 2011

Hmmm... let me explain it for you. One is man made, and the other is nature.

True, that is certainly a distinction.

One we can control and the other we can't.

Not true. Just as we can take measures to make nuclear reactors even safer and more resilient to natural disasters, we can also take steps to reduce the damage done by natural disasters. In the case of tsunamis that means higher and stronger sea walls, for example. In the case of earthquakes, that means buildings and infrastructure designed to withstand them. All of these impose economic costs in exchange for increased safety. Why should the discussion all be focused on scrapping plans for future reactors or implementing expensive new safety measures at future reactors, when the far greater danger is from earthquakes and tsunamis themselves? If we want to avoid the kind of death toll and economic damage seen in Japan if a similar disaster ever strikes here, we need to be preparing ourselves for tsunamis and earthquakes.

TimG · March 25, 2011

I think it's largely an ideological predisposition.

It is a position based on facts rather than conjecture. If the facts change the position will change. However, those screaming about nuclear power did so before this incident and would have done so if it had never occurred. If you are looking for ideology that is where you find it. Edited March 25, 2011 by TimG

no1ninja · March 25, 2011

Not true. Just as we can take measures to make nuclear reactors even safer and more resilient to natural disasters, we can also take steps to reduce the damage done by natural disasters. In the case of tsunamis that means higher and stronger sea walls, for example. In the case of earthquakes, that means buildings and infrastructure designed to withstand them. All of these impose economic costs in exchange for increased safety. Why should the discussion all be focused on scrapping plans for future reactors or implementing expensive new safety measures at future reactors, when the far greater danger is from earthquakes and tsunamis themselves? If we want to avoid the kind of death toll and economic damage seen in Japan if a similar disaster ever strikes here, we need to be preparing ourselves for tsunamis and earthquakes.

I don't think nuclear reactors should be scrapped. What I think is that we can learn something from this tragedy, it would be a shame if we didn't.

The first thing, is that the price of nuclear energy isn't exactly 7 cents a kilowatt (or whatever low arbitrary price it is made out to be).

Edited March 25, 2011 by no1ninja

eyeball · March 25, 2011

No doubt....the actual death toll from the earthquake and tsunami are nothing compared to contaminated spinach and dairy products! [/sarcasm}

Anyone else recall the optimist's mocking predictions of a high death toll due to the earthquake and tsunami?

Where was the sarcasm then?

bush_cheney2004 · March 26, 2011

Anyone else recall the optimist's mocking predictions of a high death toll due to the earthquake and tsunami?

Where was the sarcasm then?

I sure do...you must have been asleep at the helm...again.

William Ashley · March 26, 2011

I was somewhat surpised to hear that the North Korean Red Cross is sending $100,000 to Japan.

Oleg Bach · March 27, 2011

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that 'tis the end for Japan. Compare to the economies of the world Japan is 3rd, US is 14 trillion in debt, Japan 7

You can't compare japan economies to Greece and Jamaica

Japan economy is slightly below China valued - however china is still a developing economy

US and Japan are more mature economies

The yen didn't take a plunge, nor the US dollar didn't sky rocket as buyers move from the Yen to US$ - didn't happen

Japan will be a "OK"

When you can't drink the water of life that is a serious defect in a civilzation...Japan is an island nation..The out of control nuke furnaces will have to be buried...I could see them survive if there was more land mass...they are simply to small a place to have the powr to disipate radio active matter. Even those that buy parts from Japan are treating the material like metalic mad cow disease.

WIP · March 27, 2011

I don't think nuclear reactors should be scrapped. What I think is that we can learn something from this tragedy, it would be a shame if we didn't.

The first thing, is that the price of nuclear energy isn't exactly 7 cents a kilowatt (or whatever low arbitrary price it is made out to be).

If the total financial and environmental costs of uranium mining, processing, building and operating nuclear power stations PLUS the big, unpaid for cost that we are off-loading on many generations of future descendants -- nuclear wastes -- was all added to the cost of that kilowatt/hr., we would have been well down the road to sustainable energy sources with low environmental impact....assuming of course, that the total costs of the fossil fuel industries were also up front, and not payed for by taxpayers.