The end of the empire of Japan

GostHacked · May 17, 2011

Companies like Norinco etc. are ALL Chinese. And they all make copies of our products. They consider stealing "internal affairs".

It's not stealing, western governments gave some patents to China in order to gain access to cheap labour for the products we buy. That was part of the deal.

So why are we talking about CO2 emissions when talking about nuclear waste? It is not zero emissions, and the radioactive emissions have more immediate as well as long term dangers than Co2.

Saipan · May 17, 2011

Past emissions do mean something, since they've added to the present levels

No, it's used by plants.

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

So why it was so much warmer 5 to 6 thousand years ago?

And the entire world has not benefited from the high use of fossil fuels over the last two centuries.

It did. Except some cannibals in Borneo and such. Fossil fuel is just using solar energy store at some point in the past. I use solar energy stored some 30 - 60 years ago.

The concept of climate debt is based on the sad fact that the areas of the world which are the most undeveloped...usually in the tropics, are also the areas being most adversely affected by the changes we are making to the climate.

They are benefitting most. No longer have to use stone axes and inventing wheels.

Btw, WHAT climate changes??

WIP · May 17, 2011

No, it's used by plants.

Not enough is used by plants...as we can see by the fact that CO2 levels are rising at an increasing rate and closing in on 400 ppm.

So why it was so much warmer 5 to 6 thousand years ago?

Show me the sources! Paleoclimate is difficult to study as it is over short time frames. If there was a spike in temperatures 5000 years ago, it may have just been a local event...like that Medieval Warming period that climate change deniers like to go on about; or, since we're talking about the world after the last ice age, the rapid decline of ice, may have temporarily led to a rapidly warming period, as the albedo of the Earth's surface dropped due to the loss of reflective ice....who knows...but it had little or nothing to do with co2 levels.

They are benefitting most. No longer have to use stone axes and inventing wheels.
Btw, WHAT climate changes??

Naomi Klein wrote a comprehensive piece on the issue that is causing anger and resentment in undeveloped nations, and one that is the most ignored issue in the west: Climate Debt before the Copenhagen Summit...which was supposed to focus on this issue, and did nothing about it! You think the people in most of the Third World have benefited from the modern industrialization and global capitalism of the last two centuries....let's set aside some of the Pacific islands that will be flooded out in the coming decades, the real crisis will start when land-based ice sheets start sliding into the oceans in the West Antarctic. The sea level rise will flood out a third of Bangladesh, and leave most of the rest of the overcrowded, dirt-poor nation unfit for agriculture. Incidentally, India is responding by building massive walls and fences along their border, to prevent a mass influx of climate refugees.

But shunning the high price of climate change carries a cost of its own. U.S. military and intelligence agencies now consider global warming a leading threat to national security. As sea levels rise and droughts spread, competition for food and water will only increase in many of the world's poorest nations. These regions will become "breeding grounds for instability, for insurgencies, for warlords," according to a 2007 study for the Center for Naval Analyses led by Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former Centcom commander. To keep out millions of climate refugees fleeing hunger and conflict, a report commissioned by the Pentagon in 2003 predicted that the U.S. and other rich nations would likely decide to "build defensive fortresses around their countries."

I'd like to see General Zinni, or writers who have addressed the political implications of climate-induced instability, like Gwynn Dyer - "Climate Wars" go a little further into those what-ifs, and tell us what our prospects are here in the safe northern and western nations if one of those desperate, dying nations threatens the use of nuclear weapons as leverage. Allowing climate change to cascade unchecked could mean death to us all!

Saipan · May 17, 2011

It's not stealing, western governments gave some patents to China in order to gain access to cheap labour for the products we buy. That was part of the deal.

No, it was stolen. We have no access to cheap labour in CHINESE company. They do.

So why are we talking about CO2 emissions when talking about nuclear waste? It is not zero emissions, and the radioactive emissions have more immediate as well as long term dangers than Co2.

That's true.

GostHacked · May 23, 2011

More from Gunderson.

He does give some great analysis of this disaster. His videos have been way more informative than what the media is telling us.

Saipan · May 23, 2011

The breeder isn't there to make money, it's there to burn the radioactive waste produced by other reactors. It would be an expense, like paying to bury the waste, but you'd be burning the waste in a reactor instead of burying it. It would only take a few such reactors to reprocess all the world's nuclear waste.

Most interesting. I didn't know that.

Saipan · May 23, 2011

Show me the sources!

Never heard of Holocene Maximum?

If there was a spike in temperatures 5000 years ago, it may have just been a local event

You mean like the "global warming" nowhere to be seen? Holocene Maximum actually lasted couple of millenia.

climate change deniers

don't exist. Everyone knows climate was, is, and always will be changing. Just like the weather, it's what it does best

Naomi Klein wrote a comprehensive piece on the issue that is causing anger and resentment in undeveloped nations

Called "we want more money". Just like the indians here. Common problem that is not going away. The shortest description of Socialism is; "A system where two people can live off each other indefinitely without either doing any work" and poor people love it. Then there's no need to work hard all day 7 days a week to develop a business. Just open a beer and watch ball game.

Allowing climate change to cascade unchecked could mean death to us all!

There's basically no difference between wacky environmentalists and religious End-of-the-world doomsayers. We did something wrong and God/Mother Nature will punish us, and now we have to do some Rain Dance and animal/human/economic sacrifice.

GostHacked · May 24, 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13497656

Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) has confirmed the meltdown of extra fuel rods in reactors at its damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant.
The company said that the rods were in its Number 2 and Number 3 reactors.

Tepco has been trying to contain radiation from the plant, crippled by the 11 March earthquake and tsunami.

The company said that it planned to stick to its timetable of getting the radiation under control by January.

So, it keeps getting worse!! ... January before they get the radiation under control??? So that means the radiation is NOT under control.

veserieL · May 25, 2011

Hope people of Japan will soon get over the tragedy that happened to them :unsure: ..

GostHacked · May 25, 2011

What happens when you have too much radiation to deal with? You simply increase the amount of allowable (aka safe) radiation limits.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/24/3225435.htm

Outraged parents have held a rowdy demonstration outside Japan's education ministry in Tokyo to protest against the government's decision to weaken nuclear safety standards in schools.
Under new guidelines, Japanese children are allowed to be exposed to 20 times more radiation than was previously permissible.

The new regulation means children can now be exposed to as much radiation as a German nuclear worker.

The government argues the change is essential to keeping schools open in the Fukushima region.

According to Nobel Prize-winning group Physicians for Social Responsibility, the new limits mean exposed children now have a one-in-200 risk of getting cancer, compared with a one-in-500 risk for adults.

GostHacked · May 27, 2011

http://www.naturalnews.com/032537_Fukushima_meltdown.html

(NaturalNews) The Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) house of cards is toppling, as it has now been revealed that three reactors at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility all melted shortly after the devastating earthquake and tsunami hit them on March 11 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...). TEPCO also now admits that holes likely exist in the reactors' containment vessels as a result, which explains the persistent water leaks and drastic temperature fluctuations that led to continuous containment problems (http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english...).
TEPCO officials claim that the company has never hidden any of this information from the public, but that recent data analysis has confirmed what many scientists and experts had correctly predicted weeks ago based on observation of the situation. And rightfully so, many remain critical of TEPCO's drastic underestimation of the true condition of the plant, and say the company's unrealistic optimism since the disaster first occurred has been wholly misleading, and not at all based in reality.

And there you have it.

TimG · May 27, 2011

And there you have it.

Have what? The self serving and factually inaccurate spin of an anti-nuke site?

The meltdown was acknowledged weeks ago:

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_asia/2011-03-28/japanese-officials-confirm-meltdown-at-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html

The attempts by anti-nuke critiques to spin this issue are getting rediculous.

GostHacked · May 27, 2011

Have what? The self serving and factually inaccurate spin of an anti-nuke site?

The meltdown was acknowledged weeks ago:

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_asia/2011-03-28/japanese-officials-confirm-meltdown-at-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html

The attempts by anti-nuke critiques to spin this issue are getting rediculous.

Like you tried to spin it saying it was not as bad as Chernobyl, when it's clear now it has reached that stage? Like you said there would only be about 1000 deaths related to the disaster (Or was that another poster)

Well, other countries are taking this crisis seriously. Germany fast tracked the decommisioning of 8 nuke plants (they were going to be decommissioned eventually but this crisis changed that). Also I think Sweden also took 5 older nuke plants offline and will decomission them.

Even the US is looking at this in more detail. The US has several plants on major fault lines (New Madrid siesmic zone) and they are reviewing those ones.

You've tried to spin it saying it was really not a big deal, when it was a much bigger deal than any of us though.

Meh, what is a little radiation eh?

TimG · May 27, 2011

Like you tried to spin it saying it was not as bad as Chernobyl, when it's clear now it has reached that stage?

It is not even close to Chernobyl (maybe 1/10th the radiation release). The fact that it is in the same IAEA category means nothing.

Like you said there would only be about 1000 deaths related to the disaster (Or was that another poster)

Tsunami deaths. Irrelevant.

Well, other countries are taking this crisis seriously.

And they are importing power from nukes in France to keep the lights on. Brain dead political pandering is not something to be admired.

Meh, what is a little radiation eh?

Exactly. We are exposed to it all of the time. Its effects have been greatly exagerrated. Edited May 27, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · May 28, 2011

It is not even close to Chernobyl (maybe 1/10th the radiation release). The fact that it is in the same IAEA category means nothing.

So by the time they get it under control (6-9 months!!), Chernobyl will be surpassed. You will hear about this in a couple years that all of a sudden they wil figure out it was much worse than Chernobyl. It will go on much longer than Chernobyl.

Tsunami deaths. Irrelevant.

You were still wrong, so it is relevant.

Exactly. We are exposed to it all of the time. Its effects have been greatly exagerrated.

Bullshit. Go stand near Fukushima if you think the effects have been greatly exaggerated.

TimG · May 28, 2011

So by the time they get it under control (6-9 months!!), Chernobyl will be surpassed.

Not a chance. Radiation is not leaking in any significant amounts anymore.

The fact is Fukushima never was and never will be as bad as Chernobyl because radiation has only been leaking from reactors that have already been shutdown. It is physically impossible for it to reach that level of an active and unprotected reactor exploding.

You were still wrong, so it is relevant.

Not it is not. We are talking about the Fukushima incident. Deaths from tsunami are not relevent.

Bullshit. Go stand near Fukushima if you think the effects have been greatly exaggerated.

Wouldn't have problem if I had reason to be there, but I don't.

GostHacked · May 28, 2011

Not a chance. Radiation is not leaking in any significant amounts anymore.

How wrong you are. The contaiment pools were compromised. The containment vessles were compromised.

The fact is Fukushima never was and never will be as bad as Chernobyl because radiation has only been leaking from reactors that have already been shutdown.

Bullshit, only reactor 4 was shut down. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 were still active. 1-4 had explosions with #3 being the largest. You don't get away scott free after having debris thrown a couple thousand feet into the air. Fuel rods have been reported up to 2 miles from the Fukushima site. Gunderson from Fairwinds talked about it, and I am more inclined to beleive him than these so called 'experts'.

It is physically impossible for it to reach that level of an active and unprotected reactor exploding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UA5vontE2U

Not it is not. We are talking about the Fukushima incident. Deaths from tsunami are not relevent.

But it's more or less speaking to your track record in this thread of you being wrong. And you being wrong, is the relevance.

Wouldn't have problem if I had reason to be there, but I don't.

Forgive me if I don't believe you.

TimG · May 28, 2011

How wrong you are. The contaiment pools were compromised. The containment vessles were compromised.

And how much radiation does that add up to?

The explosions of the reactors were cause by HYDROGEN released. They were not an explosion of the reactors. There is a huge difference in terms of radiological profile.

More importantly, the hydrogen explosion in reactor 4 now appears to be a result of leak from #3. The spent fuel rods appear in No 4. appear to be fine and there was never any big issue with them. The people claiming disaster were flat out wrong.

Forgive me if I don't believe you.

Why would you? You never believe anything that does not fit into your chicken little narrative.

Sir Bandelot · May 28, 2011

We are exposed to it all of the time. Its effects have been greatly exagerrated.

I'll take a tiny dose of arsenic, and you take a big one. The effects are 'exagerrated' when the dose is increased.

TimG · May 28, 2011

I'll take a tiny dose of arsenic, and you take a big one. The effects are 'exagerrated' when the dose is increased.

The issue is what is a 'big dose'. The chicken littles would like us to believe that any level beyond background is deadly poison yet the science does not support such a belief.

Sir Bandelot · May 29, 2011

The issue is what is a 'big dose'. The chicken littles would like us to believe that any level beyond background is deadly poison yet the science does not support such a belief.

Agreed that there is a "grey" region beyond the normal background level, and this is an area of disputed research, that involves statistical averages on large numbers of population, the so-called 'stochastic' effects. In recent years, allowable levels of low radiation dose for nuclear energy workers (NEWS) has been lowered by a factor of two. These levels are set by the IAEA and voluntarily adopted into law by countries. Dose levels are carefully monitored for NEWS, not only in the amount but the 'quality' of radiation. Any breach or excessive exposure is taken quite seriously and always investigated.

For the general public the dose levels are lower, but there is no monitoring (as in the wearing of badges,etc). The effects on pregnant women and young children is also significantly more pronounced, they cannot be NEWS. In Canada, this is enshrined in federal law and taken very seriously. During an investigation the CNSC inspectors can invoke power of attorney. They can put you under oath and if you lie to them you can end up doing jail time. So while we argue about the technicalities of unknown risk in elevated dose levels to the public over long periods of time, it is no joke and the decision to raise the allowable dose levels, because of an accident should not be taken as trivial.

TimG · May 29, 2011

So while we argue about the technicalities of unknown risk in elevated dose levels to the public over long periods of time, it is no joke and the decision to raise the allowable dose levels, because of an accident should not be taken as trivial.

I think you are arguing a point I did not make. GostHacked suggested I should go to exclusion zone around Fukushima. I said I would have no problems because I do not think the radiation level there are a serious risk.

What you appear to be talking about are the changes the Japanese government is making to regulations. I have not gone back and looked at what they are doing but the science, as I understand it, says as long as you don't ingest the radiation exposure to 100mSv per year is fine. Nuclear workers have limits of 20-50mSv to take into account measurement error.

50 mSv/year translates a maximum dosage of 5.7 uSv/hr.

The dosages around Fukushima are between 0.1 and 17uSv and decreasing. The upper end is a potential risk so the exclusion zone will need to be maintained for now. The rate outside of the exclusion zone in Fukushima is 1.6 uSv/Hr so there is no risk.

Keep is mind that when I say 5.7 uSv/hr that assumes that people move back in and live their permanently. Going in for part of the day would be no risk.

That said there are people who live confortably at higher radiation exposures:

In Ramsar a peak yearly dose of 260 mSv has been reported (compared with 0.06 mSv of a chest radiograph or up to 20 mSv of a CT scan) ... There are more than nine hot springs in the area with different concentrations of radioisotopes, and these are used as spas by locals and tourists. This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radio-resistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox". It has also been reported that residents have healthier and longer lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

So even higher levels radiation is not necessarily a problem. But in the absence of knowlegde we do need a line. I simply think that the line could be higher than want people assume.

Edited May 29, 2011 by TimG

GostHacked · May 29, 2011

Hell, I am tempted to pay for your trip to the Fukushima site, if you don't think the radiation out of Fukushima is that bad.

Sir Bandelot · May 29, 2011

I think you are arguing a point I did not make. GostHacked suggested I should go to exclusion zone around Fukushima. I said I would have no problems because I do not think the radiation level there are a serious risk.

What you appear to be talking about are the changes the Japanese government is making to regulations. I have not gone back and looked at what they are doing but the science, as I understand it, says as long as you don't ingest the radiation exposure to 100mSv per year is fine. Nuclear workers have limits of 20-50mSv to take into account measurement error.

It's not as simple as that, when we're talking about stochastic effects. Suggest you look that up. There is no threshold in the induction of cancer for long term, low-level exposure. This essentially means, doubling the dose doubles the risk and can be applied statistically to the population at large.

As well, there is the issue of "quality", by which is meant, effects from different types of radiation sources. Alpha particles for instance, are among the most deadly, and there will likely be alpha particle contamination from the depleted uranium. It can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin, where it migrates to and gets absorbed by the bones. It stays there forever. That is why some of the corpses that were found were too radioactive to be handled in the usual way.

TimG · May 29, 2011

There is no threshold in the induction of cancer for long term, low-level exposure.

Whether a threshold exists or not is a matter of dispute. Many studies suggest a threshold exists below which there is no risk or even a benefit. I gave you a concrete example of a population exposed to high levels of radiation that experienced no observable effects. That example alone is enough to show the "no-threshold" argument is likely false.

Here is some info on the debate:

http://www.philrutherford.com/radiation_risk.html

Various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmetal Protection Agency (EPA) have extrapolated these risk ratios, based on high doses, down to much lower dose levels, and all the way down to zero dose. This theoretical extrapolation is called the linear-no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis. In effect, it postulates that even the smallest incremental dose of radiation has an associated small risk associated with it.
Proponents of the theoretical LNT model argue that, since we do not know much about health effects at very low doses, it is prudent and conservative to presume that they exist, and that the LNT model represents a reasonable upper bound for the risks.

Opponents of the theoretical LNT argue that it is not supported by scientific evidence of health effects at very low doses, and that regulations based on the LNT do not achieve any real measurable public health benefit.