A Glimspe Inside The Destroyed Fukushima Plant

[bill937ca]

Journalists were taken on a tour Saturday, November 12, 2011.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/a-look-inside-the-destroyed-fukushima-nuclear-plant/article2234554/

[Bernard]

That is scary!

[Guest JRF-1935]

Tragic  

Hopefully things are getter better now that Journalists are allowed to view the plant.

Thanks for the post Bill.

[The_Ghan]

I feel so sorry for them.

 

What happens to the animals, the fish and the birds that fly through this area?

 

What happens to the babies due to be born in the next few months?

 

I wouldn't get within 100km of Fukushima, not for the next 20 years.

 

"I believe in nuclear power, the kind with the reactor 150,000,000km away.", Dr Jack Greenland, UTS, 1988.

 

May God bless them all.

 

The_Ghan

[Martijn Meerts]

I don't really have anything against nuclear power, it really is quite safe for the most part. The problem is, if something does happen, it tends to get really bad really fast, whereas for example coal plants do their polluting and other unhealthy stuff over a long period of time.

 

It's kinda like flying.. It's the safest method of transportation, but when something happens, a lot of people tend to die, so people get the idea that flying is very unsafe.

 

 

Anyway, those pictures are incredible, really looks like some post-apocalyptic scene. Especially the trucks really look like little toys. Considering the severity of the earthquake and tsunami, it's incredible that there's still buildings there at all.

[Mr Frosty]

I don't really have anything against nuclear power, it really is quite safe for the most part. The problem is, if something does happen, it tends to get really bad really fast, whereas for example coal plants do their polluting and other unhealthy stuff over a long period of time.

 

Quite true. I suppose that if you factor mining and oil exploration/production/transportation into the equatuion as well; then the nuclear plants are probably a lot safer and environmentally friendly than other methods of generating energy

[The_Ghan]

Hi Martijn,

 

See my comments in green.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

I don't really have anything against nuclear power, it really is quite safe for the most part.  Yes, it's the other parts I worry about.  The Chernobyl and Fukushima parts! The problem is, if whensomething does happen, it tends to get really bad really fast, whereas for example coal plants do their polluting and other unhealthy stuff over a long period of time.

 

It's kinda like flying.. It's the safest method of transportation, but when something happens, a lot of people tend to die, so people get the idea that flying is very unsafe.  hmm ... I don't know of a flying accident that comtaminated thousands of square kilometres of land.   

 

 

Anyway, those pictures are incredible, really looks like some post-apocalyptic scene. That's because it is!!!  Especially the trucks really look like little toys. Considering the severity of the earthquake and tsunami, it's incredible that there's still buildings there at all.

 

China is building over 90 nuclear power plants.  India is planning another 50 or so.  With the current plants operating today we seem to have a major nuclear accident every 20-25 years.  How many of these can our environment take?  How safe are we as these things start to age?  Think about the almost-bankrupt EU countries like Italy and Greece.  Can they afford to properly maintain and decommission their nuclear assets (if they have them, that is).  I'm not trying to be a scare-mongerer.  It is simply a fact that complacency is a human trait.  We have nuclear reactors therefore there WILL be nuclear accidents.

[Martijn Meerts]

Ghan, I'm not trying to defend nuclear plants, obviously it'd be better if they were replaced with power plants that don't cause the kind of devastation a nuclear plant causes (both short and long term). Obviously for new power plants, countries should look into alternatives to nuclear, but for some countries there's currently just no other viable option.

 

 

Obviously a plane crash isn't as bad as a meltdown, (unless the plane is carrying nuclear bombs..) but it was just to illustrate that most people are afraid of nuclear power because there's a lot of damage if/when something goes wrong but it doesn't go wrong often. A plane crash is the same in that regard, people are afraid of flying because if/when something goes wrong, it's a lot worse than say a car crash.

 

 

And yes, as long as there are nuclear power plants, there will be nuclear accidents. However, because we have cars, there are fatal car crashes. And if you look at fatal accidents in 20-25 years time, shouldn't be then also get rid of all cars?

 

"According to the World Health Organization, road traffic injuries caused an estimated 1.26 million deaths worldwide in the year 2000." .. 1.26 million in just 1 year, those aren't very good numbers.

 

 

Again, I'm not trying to defend nuclear power. It would definitely be better without nuclear plants, I'm just trying to compare and measure up the pros and cons. In the end though, it's one of those topics where discussions can heat up real quick, so we should just agree to disagree on the topic of nuclear plants ;)

 

 

Oh, and when did we have the apocalypse btw, I must've missed it  

[Tecchan]

In northern Japan children begin to have thyroid problems.

The total surface that has to be decontaminated has the size of the Tokyo area (decontaminating means removing 5 to 10cm of ground).

Radioactivity is anormal, even in Yokoyama to the south of Tokyo.

 

The situation is getting better but it's not good.

[The_Ghan]

Hi Martijn,

 

Please don't take my response to your last email personally.  It was not meant to be, but your views appear to be a common consensus amongst people these days.

 

We have a variety of green power sources available that we just don't utilise because they aren't "economically viable".  Yet we place little or no weight on what is socially or environmentally viable, because happy days don't pay bills, neither do rainforests and prestine reefs.  With a combination of wind, solar, and thermal power there is absolutely no need to use non-renewable fossil or nuclear based fuels.  I did a thesis on the topic, but I won't bore you with the mantra exept to say this:  If we abandon non-renewable fuels for power generation then we are living in a world capable of supporting 10B people.  If we stick with our current thinking then we are living in a world capable of supporting 1B.  The problem is, we already have 7B on the planet.

 

To go with your car analogy for a minute.  This is a good example of ignoring the social and environmental viability.  A car accident in Hawaii has no effect on the people of California.  It doesn't irreparably harm the environment or permanently raise background radiation levels.  I'm not worried about 1M people being killed each year on the roads.  Really, I'm not.  Each is a sad, personal tragedy but there's 7B of us.  One single nuclear accident, or war, affects the whole ecosystem.  Background radiation levels in Hawaii and California are already higher, or so I read, as a result of the Fukushima disaster. 

 

No blue whale, bengal tiger, sumatran rhinoceros or mountain gorilla is going to miss a few million people.  But will we miss them after we have witnessed, and been responsible for, their slow-motion extinction?

 

So far, Germany is the only country with the balls to commence the transition away from nuclear energy and I applaud them for taking that step.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[Martijn Meerts]

Ghan, the economically viable bit is definitely the main problem. Another issue is surface area required for the alternatives. A while ago there was a huge drive (mainly from hardcore anti-nuclear groups) to put up windmills to replace nuclear plants. However, to generate enough power for a large city, an area the size of the Netherlands would have to be filled with windmills :)

 

Either way, it's definitely the money hungry lot that halts development of green power. When I was still studying car mechanics, I saw a lot of videos/read a lot of articles about electric cars and cars running on tap water. It was all very viable, but the various oil companies spent many hundreds of millions to buy all the technology, patents, blueprints and prototypes, so that they could keep selling their oil.

 

The car analogy is a valid one for most people, considering they do indeed not consider the environmental aspect. Even when there's a meltdown far away, they won't care because it doesn't really affect them. Only when they're directly affected will they change their view on things.

 

 

It's funny that you mention the mountain gorilla (and other animals for that matter) because I really love animals, and especially gorillas. So, while my view might be common, I'm definitely for preservation of wildlife and forests. In fact, I'm no violent person, but I would kill to save the life of a gorilla. (I was depressed for weeks after seeing Gorillas in the mist for example, and can't even watch stuff like King Kong anymore, even though it's obvious the apes are fake .... )

 

Over the past years I probably donated some 3000-3500 USD to The Gorilla Foundation. Nowhere near enough to save even 1 gorilla, but for a single person I believe it's decent enough amount, and if I earned more, I would donate more. There's another problem with preserving the environment though. Organizations such as WWF are just so massive these days, that a lot of the money donated goes into overhead and organizational cost. For a lot of people (myself included) that's a reason not to donate. In my case, I went looking for smaller, more specialized organizations such as the Gorilla Foundation and donate to those instead. Also, organizations like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are a bit too radical and media hungry, and mess things up for most "real" preservation companies.

 

Really getting off topic now though :)

[The_Ghan]

Hi Martijn,

 

Comments in green again.

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

 

Ghan, the economically viable bit is definitely the main problem. Another issue is surface area required for the alternatives. A while ago there was a huge drive (mainly from hardcore anti-nuclear groups) to put up windmills to replace nuclear plants. However, to generate enough power for a large city, an area the size of the Netherlands would have to be filled with windmills :)  Agreed.  Relying on wind farms alone is a ludicrous proposition.  Solar is good for micro installations, such as personal domestic or small villages, etc. Geo-thermal however, can be produced at the kind of scale required by the modern metropolis.

 

Either way, it's definitely the money hungry lot that halts development of green power. When I was still studying car mechanics, I saw a lot of videos/read a lot of articles about electric cars and cars running on tap water. It was all very viable, but the various oil companies spent many hundreds of millions to buy all the technology, patents, blueprints and prototypes, so that they could keep selling their oil.  I agree that large corporations and patent law are two major obstacles that must be dealt with.

 

The car analogy is a valid one for most people, considering they do indeed not consider the environmental aspect. Even when there's a meltdown far away, they won't care because it doesn't really affect them. Only when they're directly affected will they change their view on things.

 

 

It's funny that you mention the mountain gorilla (and other animals for that matter) because I really love animals, and especially gorillas. So, while my view might be common, I'm definitely for preservation of wildlife and forests. In fact, I'm no violent person, but I would kill to save the life of a gorilla. (I was depressed for weeks after seeing Gorillas in the mist for example, and can't even watch stuff like King Kong anymore, even though it's obvious the apes are fake .... ) I agree with you 100%.  Try watching "Dances With Wolves".  I've done a 1 month camping safari through Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa.  I want to return to Africa specifically to meet the gorillas.

 

Over the past years I probably donated some 3000-3500 USD to The Gorilla Foundation. Nowhere near enough to save even 1 gorilla, but for a single person I believe it's decent enough amount, and if I earned more, I would donate more. There's another problem with preserving the environment though. Organizations such as WWF are just so massive these days, that a lot of the money donated goes into overhead and organizational cost. For a lot of people (myself included) that's a reason not to donate. In my case, I went looking for smaller, more specialized organizations such as the Gorilla Foundation and donate to those instead. Also, organizations like Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are a bit too radical and media hungry, and mess things up for most "real" preservation companies.  When I was in Uni a few of us helped rescue a pod of dolphins.  It's a life changing experience, especially when you fail.  We saved about 1/4 of them.  It's the ones we couldn't save that hurt.  Whaling and the killing of dolphins are two things that Japan and I fail to see eye-to-eye on.  I'm afraid that I'm one of those rednecks who donates to Sea Shepherd every year.

 

Really getting off topic now though :)  This is platform 6 .... we're MEANT to be off-topic!!!

 

Cheers

 

The_Ghan

[Martijn Meerts]

Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace mostly have good intentions, it's just their methods I don't quite agree with. I guess in certain instances, their methods are the only way to get things done though.

[cteno4]

Interesting read on tepco

 

http://nyti.ms/vG5djg

 

Jeff