Nuclear power debate

GWC Community Off-Topic/Other
#141

Yeah they do. It’s covered in CNN.com video reports. It’s also in wikipedia, but we know how reliable that can be.

On August 29, 2002, the government of Japan revealed that TEPCO was guilty of false reporting in routine governmental inspection of its nuclear plants and systematic concealment of plant safety incidents. All seventeen of its boiling-water reactors were shut down for inspection as a result. TEPCO’s chairman Hiroshi Araki, President Nobuya Minami, Vice-President Toshiaki Enomoto, as well as the advisers Sh? Nasu and Gaishi Hiraiwa stepped-down by September 30, 2002.[6] The utility “eventually admitted to two hundred occasions over more than two decades between 1977 and 2002, involving the submission of false technical data to authorities”.[7] Upon taking over leadership responsibilities, TEPCO’s new president issued a public commitment that the company would take all the countermeasures necessary to prevent fraud and restore the nation’s confidence. By the end of 2005, generation at suspended plants had been restarted, with government approval.

In 2007, however, the company announced to the public that an internal investigation had revealed a large number of unreported incidents. These included an unexpected unit criticality in 1978 and additional systematic false reporting, which had not been uncovered during the 2002 inquiry. Along with scandals at other Japanese electric companies, this failure to ensure corporate compliance resulted in strong public criticism of Japan’s electric power industry and the nation’s nuclear energy policy. Again, the company made no effort to identify those responsible.

When I get bored/motivated, I’ll try looking up more CNN videos.

edit: Article I found after a quick google.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-falsified-inspection-records/story-fn84naht-1226023073141

#142

I’ve tried finding a video. But, the videos I’ve come across has people referring to Petco’s credibility problems w/o saying what the problems are. d:

Still, there’s plenty of articles which seem to back up wikipedia’s statements.

#143

Here we go:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/17/501364/main20044198.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;2

…
In 1989 Sugaoka received an order that horrified him: edit out footage showing cracks in plant steam pipes in video being submitted to regulators. Sugaoka alerted his superiors in the Tokyo Electric Power Co., but nothing happened – for years. He decided to go public in 2000. Three Tepco executives lost their jobs.
…
Tepco has safety violations that stretch back decades. In 1978, control rods at one Fukushima reactor dislodged but the accident was not reported because utilities were not required to notify the government of such accidents. In 2006, Tepco reported a negligible amount of radioactive steam seeped from the Fukushima plant – and blew beyond the compound.

#144

Not good! Well, here’s hoping they tell the truth on this.

#145

nothing human build will ever been unfailable. So it comes down to how bad would it be if something we build fails. And not how absolutely safe it is when it doesn’t fail.

In the case of Uranium powered fission plants, doesn’t matter if they are BWRs or pressurised, the benefits just doesn’t offset the hazard when one of it fails. Especially when there are far safer/cheaper nuclear power options that we haven’t even spend the effort to implement.

Nations like North Korea, India, Iran, China, and many other nations are looking to massively expend their nuclear programs. I think US, Japan, European should actively find the alternative to uranium fission, make it production worthy, and then share this tech with the other nations. Instead of banking on these nations ability to run a nuclear power plant, and pray that there’s no nuclear proliferation.

#146

I like that idea. But given the political climate, it seems unlikely.

Also, The US has already been sharing our solar and wind power tech, but “third world” nations don’t have enough capital to take advantage of them. Except in the case of China who has pulled ahead of the US in solar power tech, but they did it mostly as a means of gaining an economical advantage.

#147

More iodine/iodide news…

Beware of ‘fake’ potassium iodide: FDA
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/18/news/economy/CDC_iodide_radiation_advisory/index.htm?hpt=T2

In the wake of the crisis in Japan, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is advising consumers to beware of inadvertently buying fake iodide products that are supposed to help protect against radiation.

“We’re alerting consumers to be wary of products that falsely claim to prevent radiation and protect consumers, or are not FDA-approved,” said an FDA spokesperson.
…
Products to watch out for include fake tablets and liquids purporting to be iodide, as well as dietary supplements and other products that say they protect against radiation, said the spokesperson.

The agency added information about radiation safety on its website that includes more details about what to beware of before buying iodide products.

There are only three FDA-approved potassium iodide products that protect against radiation. The agency’s website identifies them as Iosat, made by Anbex; ThyroSafe from Recipharm AB; and ThyroShield from Fleming & Co.

double sigh

#148

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20044323-10391695.html

14 “near misses” cited at US nuke plants in 2010

A new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigated 14 “near misses” at US nuclear plants in 2010 that the report describes as “troubling events, safety equipment problems, and security shortcomings.”

The report says the problems occurred at the plants because plant managers “tolerated safety problems.”

“It’s ridiculously overstated, ridiculously,” says Steve Kerekes from Nuclear Energy Institute which represents the nuclear industry in Washington.

Kerekes points to where the UCS report concedes that the “chances of disaster at a nuclear plant are low” and he says their plants work to correct any problems, “that doesn’t mean that you jeopardize safety.”

The report, released in the wake of the nuclear reactor crisis in Japan, says the near misses did not result in harm to plant employees or the public.

Umm… Yeah…

#149

That sounds good, but tell me what is a safer/cheaper “baseload” energy source? Solar? Wind? neither of those are baseload, and are not cheaper per megawatt.

#150

still nuclear, but uranium and plutonium aren’t the only nuclear capable elements, there are more abundant, and less volatile elements that we could use.

#151

Some much needed perspective:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

#152

These are fixed numbers, the highest at 50 km is 330 mSV per hour. No clue on what radiation level is at closer to the plant.

So if you are at the 50 km distance to the Fukishima plant for a day when the level is at 330 mSV per hour, well, that’s 7 Sv of radiation if not shielded…

#153

That can’t be right. People would be dropping dead all over the place.

#154

Do you have a source? 330mSV is very close to the 400mSV that the chart says will cause radiation sickness if received in a short time. I don’t know what a short time is, but an hour seems short to me in this case.

#155

from Japan’s Jiji Press

http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2011031600567

Radiation levels about 6,600 times normal were detected on Tuesday at a place 20 kilometers away from a nuclear power plant at the center of Japan’s nuclear crisis, the science ministry said Wednesday.
Radiation levels reached 195 to 330 microsieverts per hour in the Fukushima Prefecture town of Namie in radiation monitoring activities for about 10 minutes from 8:40 p.m. Tuesday (11:40 a.m. GMT), the ministry said.

Here ministry refers to the Japanese of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. They also conducted tests on vehicle shielding abilities at the same time and found in side the car the radiation is still 300 mSv.

I’ve actually posted another source a few days back on this 330 mSv detection. But it is 20 km radius rather than 50, though 50 is what the Americans are recommending for their relief effort to stay out of. The level has since dropped, but 20 km (12.5 miles) is still a big radius. It is probably worse closer it gets to the plant.

#156

By the way, radiation are now being detected in Diary and Vegetable products in Japan. Tokyo city government is also warning Tyokoans not to drink tap water.

Though they are also saying you can drink a year worth of the contaminated milk, and the radiation will only be about one CT scan. Though it’s Iodine 131 and Cerium 137 contamination in the food and water, I don’t recall being bombarded with Iodine 131 and Cerium 137 last time I did a CT. I think there is a disconnection in the dialogue about the effects difference between the concentration of radiation, and the type of radiation.

more news, as of now, the official American recommended evacuation radius has increased to 80 km. Japanese official evacuation radius is staying at 20 km.

Daniel B. Poneman at a white house press meeting said the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have commedted 2 AMS (Aerial Monitor System?) to Fukushima, to be used with U2 and Global Hawk, in addition they are now committing satellites to the plant as well. Some press said the US is showing signs of less and less faith in Japanese provided information.

#157

I think a big problem is the mind-boggling array of ways to measure it.

#158

Useful information: Deaths per terrawatt hour:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

#159

i can’t figure out how they came to these numbers. did he include the man lost from mining accidents? Because that is the only reason why Coal in China causes more deaths than Coal in the US.

by the way, wouldn’t those numbers just be the personnel safety of strip mining v.s. tunnel mining? Because Uranium is mostly strip mining.

#160

That seems reasonable, if you count people dying in a nuclear power plant that melts down. Also, do these numbers count people who die from breathing polluted air and how do you divvy that one up?

I would be curious to see a comparable chart of “non worker deaths per terawatt hour.” Those numbers would possibly better represent numbers of people who were not aware of the dangers (assuming of course the workers in these plants and mines knew of the dangers)