Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Craig Lamson on March 16, 2011, 10:33:47 pm
-
Anyone heard from Bernard since the earthquake?
-
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=52136.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=52136.0)
Bernard reported in this thread.
Rich
-
Thanks
-
Although Bernard and his wife got home OK with no injuries, I'm sure life is pretty miserable for them and all their acquaintances right now, what with rolling blackouts ans shortages of both food and water.
I'm sure we all hope that the recovery there can be as swift as possible. The situation makes Katrina look like a walk in the park
Eric
-
Although Bernard and his wife got home OK with no injuries, I'm sure life is pretty miserable for them and all their acquaintances right now, what with rolling blackouts ans shortages of both food and water.
I'm sure we all hope that the recovery there can be as swift as possible. The situation makes Katrina look like a walk in the park
Eric
looks like now might just be the calm before the real (radioactive) storm
Edmund
-
Indeed, and the ramifications are huge. I suspect that it will make a lot of other countries rethink their energy supply solutions.
Rob C
-
Indeed, and the ramifications are huge. I suspect that it will make a lot of other countries rethink their energy supply solutions.
Rob C
And I thought I could get away from the aggravatingly sensationalist, unnecessarily alarmist and entirely overblown reactions on LL.
100,000 coal miners died in the US alone in the 1900s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Dangers_to_miners), and hundreds of thousands die prematurely each year due to coal pollutants in the air; coal contributes to 4 out of 5 causes of death in the US (http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html). Chernobyl disaster killed an estimated 2,200 (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf).
-
If anything I'm feeling more reassured about Nuclear power now than I did before. Listening to some of the experts on TV who actually put into perspective what the numbers mean. I feel better about it, so far it's survived a massive earthquake followed by a tsunami. Danger to life from the power plants so far has been very small. Compare that to the stuff that comes out everyday from coal fired power plants and what it takes to get coal, Oil and gas out of the ground. As it is at the moment the accident in the Gulf is most likely more of a health hazard than the Japanese problem.
Kevin.
-
Yep, the figures are flawed because they omit the deaths from car crashes, hand-guns and cancer, not to neglect heart faiulure. Clearly, for some, more than two negatives obviously make a positive. Mathematics and statistics sure have a lot for which to answer.
Rob C
-
Yep, the figures are flawed because they omit the deaths from car crashes, hand-guns and cancer, not to neglect heart faiulure. Clearly, for some, more than two negatives obviously make a positive. Mathematics and statistics sure have a lot for which to answer.
Rob C
The point I was making that the hysteria about the Japan nuclear plant is, well, hysteria. Bordering on collective insanity. Makes me weep for humanity for its lack of common sense and basic education level.
-
I'm a little confused. What would a 'non-hysterical' response to a developing nuclear catastrophe look like? On one view, you're saying that people should be a little more upset about the dirty things that are done to mine coal, shale, and oil. Fine. But then some seem to be saying that the nuclear disaster is nothing much to be concerned about. Since this seems to be a question about how people should calibrate their responses, I'll throw it open for suggestions.
-
To connect coal, energy, pollution, American Dream and... photography, check this out:
"US artist Mitch Epstein, who took photos of a tiny Ohio town where residents were placed under gagging orders by a utility company razing houses to the ground, has won the £65,000 Prix Pictet photography prize for environmental sustainability..."
The rest of the article and pictures here: http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/photography+%26+film/art350319
EDIT: Sorry, the part directly mentioning American Dream is in The Guardian article, at the end:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/mar/18/mitch-epstein-prix-pictet-photography
-
Hi,
There is a great loss of human life in Japan due to the earth quake and the Tsunami. One employee of TEPCO (Tokio Electric Power COmpany?) was killed during the earthquake, and several have been injured (perhaps badly) in the oxyhydrogen explosions.
So we discuss perhaps 15000 deaths and a nuclear disaster causing very few casualties (as of now). No question the situation at the nuclear power plants is terrible, but there needs to be some perspective. There is also a risk that those 400000 thousand tsunami refugees are forgotten with all focus on nuclear disaster. Yesterday it was reported that a dozen elderly tsunami refugees have frozen to death due to inadequate housing. The situation is terrible because of the excessive damage to infrastructure.
For those evacuated the situation is terrible, but those 400000 who survived the tsunami have no home any more and may be lost family, relatives or friends. Those who were evacuated due to radiation risks are in a much better situation.
Best regards
Erik
I'm a little confused. What would a 'non-hysterical' response to a developing nuclear catastrophe look like? On one view, you're saying that people should be a little more upset about the dirty things that are done to mine coal, shale, and oil. Fine. But then some seem to be saying that the nuclear disaster is nothing much to be concerned about. Since this seems to be a question about how people should calibrate their responses, I'll throw it open for suggestions.
-
There is a great loss of human life in Japan due to the earth quake and the Tsunami. One employee of TEPCO (Tokio Electric Power COmpany?) was killed during the earthquake, and several have been injured (perhaps badly) in the oxyhydrogen explosions.
So we discuss perhaps 15000 deaths and a nuclear disaster causing very few casualties (as of now). No question the situation at the nuclear power plants is terrible, but there needs to be some perspective. There is also a risk that those 400000 thousand tsunami refugees are forgotten with all focus on nuclear disaster. Yesterday it was reported that a dozen elderly tsunami refugees have frozen to death due to inadequate housing. The situation is terrible because of the excessive damage to infrastructure.
For those evacuated the situation is terrible, but those 400000 who survived the tsunami have no home any more and may be lost family, relatives or friends. Those who were evacuated due to radiation risks are in a much better situation.
There are manifold dimensions that give a story weight or importance, in all the conceivable ways that can be measured -- screen time, talk time, word count, column inches, number of stories, number of hits. I cannot disagree with the various ways in which you projected morbidity and mortality in situations relating to displaced persons. I think I can only try to analyze the reasons why the nuclear scenario commands so much attention.
The earthquake and tsunami are natural events with catastrophic consequences. But they are by and large unavoidable, and there is little we can do to plan for them in practical terms right now. Except for a few things. Very high up on that list is to install further safeguards on nuclear reactors. Because the disaster at Fukushima could have been prevented and should not have happened. And we see the vulnerability of coastal reactors in the west and grasp implications for us. And we see that we are not just how vulnerable we are to natural disaster, but just how vulnerable we are to terrorist attack as well. [Oyster Creek is 75 miles from New York City.]
By contrast, those of us outside Japan find it difficult to understand the aftermath of the quake/tsunami in individual terms. The scale of the disaster is difficult to grasp. And we feel more or less powerless and ignorant about what needs to be done there, how, and by whom.
The contingencies at Fukushima are more difficult for the average person to grasp. But the degree of difficulty in controlling the situation is not inspiring confidence. And we see disagreements over what really is the worst-case scenario, and without confidence in the ability of those in charge to control the situation, or even to report faithfully about it, we have some reason to imagine the worst. Among the worst things to imagine would be a full meltdown with the nuclear contamination of a part of Honshu, with wind-borne dispersion of radioactive contaminants, attendant contamination of the ground water, and perhaps corruption of the gene pool, along with long-term morbidity and mortality. The half life of nuclear fuel is often measured in hundreds of thousands of years.
Here in the northeast US, hydro-fracking has been sold as a "safe" way to recover natural gas from shale. One cornerstone of selling that proposition had to do with the claim that radioactive contaminants recovered from deep underground and flushed out with the fracking fluid could be treated in such a way that nuclear contaminants would be removed, using standard wastewater treatments. This claim turned out to be false. Existing treatment plants employed were not successful at removing radioactive contaminants, and contaminated water was being put back into the watershed. An EPA report citing contamination was suppressed, and so the practice continued unabated. One of the places where such water was dumped leads into Lake Cayuga, a mile from my house, which feeds in and out of the groundwater used for drinking. Others will recognize the Delaware River. So this constitutes a complete failure of another, but related kind. Confidence is justifiably very low when it comes to energy and public health.
-
In general, I see the lack of faith in the 'experts' as stemming from this simple situation: the understandable political need to sow calm in the face of disaster, the need to present a confident aura where, possibly, no confidence exists. In other words, who trusts a salesman?
Rob C
-
Among the worst things to imagine would be a full meltdown with the nuclear contamination of a part of Honshu, with wind-borne dispersion of radioactive contaminants, attendant contamination of the ground water, and perhaps corruption of the gene pool, along with long-term morbidity and mortality. The half life of nuclear fuel is often measured in hundreds of thousands of years.
Yes, emphasis on imagine. The realistic worst-case scenario is nothing like that. The nuclear reaction at Fukushima reactors was successfully stopped within seconds of the earthquake, as designed. It means that the reactors are now cooling, and have been doing so since the event. The event to a 5 on the INES scale (http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp), same as Three Mile Island accident, and two steps below Chernobyl.
The hysteria started immediately, nevertheless. As Erik points out, there are countless column inches dedicated to an isolated, minor incident when compared to the deaths caused by coal or oil power, the death and destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami elsewhere - not to mention the on-going recovery and reconstruction efforts in Haiti. The hysteria is Germany announcing an inspection of all nuclear plants - Germany is not exactly known for catastrophic earthquakes. Similar hysteria is everywhere in Europe, and I'm sure elsewhere.
Rob has it right: there's very little to do with reality and science in what politicians (and media) say, it's mostly about salesmanship of votes (and newspapers).
Your anecdote about hydro-fracking is entirely irrelevant: it's a new technology AFAIK, not related to nuclear power in any shape or form, in a country on the other side of the world.
-
Hi,
Please don't misunderstand. This is a very serious accident with sever consequences. But it was caused by a very major disaster striking Japan with far more fatalities and suffering than the nuclear accident on it's own. I would also add that the nuclear incident is far from contained this far.
Hopefully they get electric power back in a day or two and can start cooling down the reactors, containments and spent fuel storage pools.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, emphasis on imagine. The realistic worst-case scenario is nothing like that. The nuclear reaction at Fukushima reactors was successfully stopped within seconds of the earthquake, as designed. It means that the reactors are now cooling, and have been doing so since the event. The event to a 5 on the INES scale (http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp), same as Three Mile Island accident, and two steps below Chernobyl.
The hysteria started immediately, nevertheless. As Erik points out, there are countless column inches dedicated to an isolated, minor incident when compared to the deaths caused by coal or oil power, the death and destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami elsewhere - not to mention the on-going recovery and reconstruction efforts in Haiti. The hysteria is Germany announcing an inspection of all nuclear plants - Germany is not exactly known for catastrophic earthquakes. Similar hysteria is everywhere in Europe, and I'm sure elsewhere.
Rob has it right: there's very little to do with reality and science in what politicians (and media) say, it's mostly about salesmanship of votes (and newspapers).
Your anecdote about hydro-fracking is entirely irrelevant: it's a new technology AFAIK, not related to nuclear power in any shape or form, in a country on the other side of the world.
-
Hi,
Please don't misunderstand. This is a very serious accident with sever consequences. But it was caused by a very major disaster striking Japan with far more fatalities and suffering than the nuclear accident on it's own. I would also add that the nuclear incident is far from contained this far.
Hopefully they get electric power back in a day or two and can start cooling down the reactors, containments and spent fuel storage pools.
Best regards
Erik
Fully agree. I think they got electric power back already.
-
[...]
Rob has it right: there's very little to do with reality and science in what politicians (and media) say, it's mostly about salesmanship of votes (and newspapers).
Your anecdote about hydro-fracking is entirely irrelevant: it's a new technology AFAIK, not related to nuclear power in any shape or form, in a country on the other side of the world.
But the anecdote is relevant. It documents how scientific facts about a known, high danger level (radioactive in this case) are minimized or outright silenced by people with political and/or financial interest in preventing those facts from coming to light. In this case, these conflicts of interest prevented vital public health data from being disclosed until it was too late to prevent contamination of the ground water. It balances out the other side of your picture about "hysteria."
-
I fully agree with feppe and KevinA : this nuclear accident has so far only further proven that nuclear energy is indeed, if not safe, at least one of the less harmful ones.
feppe did already provide some background about coal, and one may investigate some dam failures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) too (I live under several dams, and work on the consequences of some others' failure these days), and don't talk iraqis about oil! And alas, there are not many other ways to produce enough energy at will.
Even in the tsunami/seism, one may want to compare losses at the fujina dam and pollution due to the fire in refineries to the nuclear accident - apples to orange in a sense, but these comparison are necessary to avoid falling in the irrationnal fear of the unknown that seems to have seized many.
And of course, these can definitely not be compared to the catastrophic losses due to the tsunami itself.
-
Yes, emphasis on imagine. The realistic worst-case scenario is nothing like that. The nuclear reaction at Fukushima reactors was successfully stopped within seconds of the earthquake, as designed. It means that the reactors are now cooling, and have been doing so since the event.
snip
You don´t really believe what you posted? Without any hysteria, I´d suggest to get some basic information about nuclear technology and what happened in Japan.
You might find yourself worried about CA.
Cheers, Ulf
-
You don´t really believe what you posted? Without any hysteria, I´d suggest to get some basic information about nuclear technology and what happened in Japan.
You might find yourself worried about CA.
The control rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod) are supposed to be dropped into the reactor core in the case of an earthquake, and they stop the nuclear reaction. I'm not a physicist, but I've read there's about 3% activity left even with the rods in, though. All 3 units had the control rods successfully inserted/dropped as designed (http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/124580/20110319/iaea-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant-live-updates.htm) right after the earthquake.
Care to cite sources for your "basic information about nuclear technology" which conflicts with anything I've said?
I don't know what CA means.
-
Even with the control rods in place, there still needs to be cooling in the reactor or else the risk the build up of heat and pressure which can lead to explosions (which has already happened) and severe damage to the reactor vessel (which is thought to have happened). But worse is the spent fuel rods which also needs to be cooled or else risk over heating and potential meltdown and massive release of serious radiation.
While the reactors did what they were supposed to do and insert the control rods, unfortunately the backup cooling systems failed-which is why they are going to the trouble of streaming seawater (which will ruin the reactors as I understand) and even the extreme measure of dropping water from helicopters (which didn't work).
Increased levels of radiation is already showing up in local food and water which considering the whole area is one of Japan's largest agro area is serious.
Unless you read (and understand) the implications, I would be very reluctant to trivialize the serious problems Japan is having...no, the radiation won't cause a major calamity for the US or other places, but on the ground in Japan it's a very serious situation. I really hope they have success addressing the problems and wish Japan well.
-
The control rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod) are supposed to be dropped into the reactor core in the case of an earthquake, and they stop the nuclear reaction. I'm not a physicist, but I've read there's about 3% activity left even with the rods in, though. All 3 units had the control rods successfully inserted/dropped as designed (http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/124580/20110319/iaea-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-power-plant-live-updates.htm) right after the earthquake.
Care to cite sources for your "basic information about nuclear technology" which conflicts with anything I've said?
I don't know what CA means.
I recently read something about the next "big one" in CA lifornia. I don´t feel very comfortable with these power plants next to expected earthquakes.
These men in Japan that are cooling the reactors in Fukushima to prevent a complete meltdown probably more than risk their lifes. (Any idea of what is 3% activity without cooling? One of these reactors is containing plutonium and I heared each plant might have those spent fuel rods that also need to be cooled placed right above the reactors.)
I am sad. I wish them well.
-
I recently read something about the next "big one" in CA lifornia. I don´t feel very comfortable with these power plants next to expected earthquakes.
These men in Japan that are cooling the reactors in Fukushima to prevent a complete meltdown probably more than risk their lifes. (Any idea of what is 3% activity without cooling? One of these reactors is containing plutonium and I heared each plant might have those spent fuel rods that also need to be cooled placed right above the reactors.)
I am sad. I wish them well.
Last I checked (earlier today) the reactors were at 65 degrees Centigrade. Again, I'm no physicist, but that's not exactly schorching hot, especially since the melting point of plutonium appears to be around 600 degrees higher.
As I've been saying from the beginning, the nuclear reaction was successfully and automatically shut down within seconds of the earthquake in all three affected reactors, which means that the reactors will cool down eventually. Cooling them with water will speed the process, but it will happen. The reactors will not restart or get hotter, unless there's a "worst case scenario" and Michael Bay directs.
Once again: yes, it's a tragedy. But there are much more dangerous man-made and natural tragedies on-going, and the Fukushima tragedy is getting wildly disproportionate mind share, fed by ignorance, sensationalism and irrational fear. There is a civil war in Libya, a brutal gunning down of 40+ civilians in Yemen, and 800,000 people living in camps for years in Haiti, one of the poorest countries on earth. And don't get me started on the economy.
I'm done with this.
-
Last I checked (earlier today) the reactors were at 65 degrees Centigrade. Again, I'm no physicist, but that's not exactly schorching hot, especially since the melting point of plutonium appears to be around 600 degrees higher.
That's for the reactors...not the spent fuel rods (which may or may not be exposed). And while the temp isn't too bad now (since they have apparently gotten water on the reactors), something must have happened (the build up of hydrogen) that caused the explosions (and released radiation) earlier in the week.
Any way you look it it, this situation is serious...not to say that other situations aren't but that's a different discussion. Don't try to mitigate a serious situation...
-
Hi,
I essentially agree with what Jeff is saying. There has been little loss of human life at the plant, but that is no reason to marginalize the accident. Hopefully the environmental effects can be contained and the evacuees soon return to their homes, but:
1) Situation is very serious
2) Major problem is loss of electric power due to tsunami, auxiliary power wiped out and backup systems flooded.
3) Even after shutdown electric power is needed to cool the fuel because of residual power to avoid meltdown. Electric power has not been available for most of a week. Signficant damage to core is believed to occurred on the plants that were in operations. Those plants are gone forever.
4) Oxyhydrogen explosions blew of the top of several reactor building indicating overheated fuel reacting with water and releasing hydrogen.
5) Spent fuel is stored in pools below massive amounts of water. This fuel also needs cooling. My impression is that oxyhydrogen explosions have occurred in storage pools indicating low water levels and overheated fuel.
6) The low temperature reported are storage pools as far as I know.
On the bright side:
It seems that radiation doses for workers are kept reasonable under the conditions. The levels this far would not cause acute radiation sickness. Also radiation levels outside the plant area are not very high (as far as I know and depending on definition of very high).
It seems that some progress has been made on cooling the spent fuel pools.
It also seems that the staff at the site successfully restarted at least one backup diesel and they start to connect electricity to the plant, so they can hopefully restart cooling systems instead of using makeshift cooling solutions.
Best regards
Erik
Even with the control rods in place, there still needs to be cooling in the reactor or else the risk the build up of heat and pressure which can lead to explosions (which has already happened) and severe damage to the reactor vessel (which is thought to have happened). But worse is the spent fuel rods which also needs to be cooled or else risk over heating and potential meltdown and massive release of serious radiation.
While the reactors did what they were supposed to do and insert the control rods, unfortunately the backup cooling systems failed-which is why they are going to the trouble of streaming seawater (which will ruin the reactors as I understand) and even the extreme measure of dropping water from helicopters (which didn't work).
Increased levels of radiation is already showing up in local food and water which considering the whole area is one of Japan's largest agro area is serious.
Unless you read (and understand) the implications, I would be very reluctant to trivialize the serious problems Japan is having...no, the radiation won't cause a major calamity for the US or other places, but on the ground in Japan it's a very serious situation. I really hope they have success addressing the problems and wish Japan well.
-
Hello my friends,
Just a quick message to confirm that my wife and I are indeed doing well. I do appreciate your concern! We have been in Osaka for a few days and currently intend to move back to Tokyo on Monday.
Our own situation is comfortable in absolute term and shamefully so compared to what folks in Northern Japan are now facing. We are now looking at ways to help.
Regarding the nuclear thing. The situation in Fukushima has indeed shown some signs of improvement but remains serious. We have now basically accepted the fact that there would be no clear cut miracle with a sharp transition from disaster to normal. It is going to take more time and there are going to be a certain level of impacts that will vary gradually depending on the distance from the source. I do not believe that Tokyo will be affected in a major way, it seems more likely to have a limited increase of ambient radioactivity for some time. How much and how long is unclear but most experts do not anticipate any negative effect on health outside a narrow area surrounding the Fukushima plants.
Today, there is a growing irritation in Japan regarding the cheap sensationalism of the WW media. We are getting tired of reading mild disappointment in the eyes of commentators when there is no new explosion to report on or a drop in radioactivity. Let's face it, it looks like CNN would really prefer this to stay hot as long as possible. BBC World is once more the international media outlet coming very far on top of the rest of the herd.
Many people from different nationalities and background I have spoken with these past few days consider this crisis to seal the death of journalism as we have known it, more so than the death of Nuclear technology. I know understand how millions of people have felt all these years about being reported upon that way. We do of course understand though that some of that is the result of the work performed by different lobbies with vested interests, for or against Nuclear energy, for or against a healthy Japanese economy,...
A lot of positive things can also be seen though. Many countries have really tried to help Japan in various ways, we do feel a huge solidarity from citizens from various countries that have started to provide huge amounts of money to help with the reconstruction. That really is moving.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Population density in Japan is extremely high. If radioactive materials get released into the atmosphere to a significant degree, then the 20 million or so people living in the Tokyo area 200 miles away are in trouble. This is the elephant in the room.
Edmund
Yes, emphasis on imagine. The realistic worst-case scenario is nothing like that. The nuclear reaction at Fukushima reactors was successfully stopped within seconds of the earthquake, as designed. It means that the reactors are now cooling, and have been doing so since the event. The event to a 5 on the INES scale (http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp), same as Three Mile Island accident, and two steps below Chernobyl.
The hysteria started immediately, nevertheless. As Erik points out, there are countless column inches dedicated to an isolated, minor incident when compared to the deaths caused by coal or oil power, the death and destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami elsewhere - not to mention the on-going recovery and reconstruction efforts in Haiti. The hysteria is Germany announcing an inspection of all nuclear plants - Germany is not exactly known for catastrophic earthquakes. Similar hysteria is everywhere in Europe, and I'm sure elsewhere.
Rob has it right: there's very little to do with reality and science in what politicians (and media) say, it's mostly about salesmanship of votes (and newspapers).
Your anecdote about hydro-fracking is entirely irrelevant: it's a new technology AFAIK, not related to nuclear power in any shape or form, in a country on the other side of the world.
-
A very coolheaded, technical, detailed, and non-sensationalistic breakdown of the power plant crises can be found at http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/understanding-japans-nuclear-crisis.ars
I found it a very interesting read and much better than most of the dribble the main networks have been putting out.
Wishing Bernard and the rest of Japan the best,
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
A very coolheaded, technical, detailed, and non-sensationalistic breakdown of the power plant crises can be found at http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/understanding-japans-nuclear-crisis.ars
Wishing Bernard and the rest of Japan the best,
Thanks Doug, this is indeed a well researched write up.
One small mistake perhaps is the mention that the plant had not been designed to withstand tsunamis. It seems that it was designed to take a 5m high tsunami, the one that occured on March 11th was apparently around 10m in that area.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Très heureux - et rassuré - de pouvoir vous lire à nouveau !
PdF
-
Glad you are all right, Bernard.
Thanks, Doug, for the link.
Also, here is a good article (although not without its own mistakes as well--be sure to read the comments afterward) on how (ionizing) radiation impacts health.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-radiation-threatens-health&page=1
Update: SciAm has re-edited the article to address all of the inaccuracies that have been raised in the comments--it is a worthwhile read.
-
That was a good read as well, including your comments. Thanks Bradley!
Always good to see actual scientific reasoning in the analysis of world crises.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Of course there are many reasons for the fascination with the nuclear crisis in Japan, and it is undeniable that the non-nuclear tsunami effects have caused way more death and misery than the reactor problems. It is also true that the media makes unwholesome sensationalism for financial gain, and the public reaction is often irrational.
That said, I don't think it's surprising that people are very concerned about the nuclear crisis. Unlike the tsunami which we can't control (and killed less people than the recent one in Indonisia), it is man made. Nuclear power is not easily understood, and requires trust in "experts" and a powerful industry, a trust which seems to have been betrayed. The more powerful the technology, the greater the unintended consequences. Can powerful industries be policed by governments? Are they, like Wall Street blinded by herd mentalities?
Unlike coal mining, it threatens everyone in an area. It's threat is unseen, insidious, and long lasting. Land at the reactor sites (we won't know how much for a while yet, hopefully not much) will be unusable for hundreds of years in a country where land is at a premium. It highlights our difficulty with risk assessment and balancing. Should we plan for the 100, 1000, or 10,000 year event? What's the difference in cost?
It also goes to the heart of our strategy for living on earth. I heard an expert in nuclear power discussing the crisis say that we must have atomic reactors because we will require 50% more energy by 2020. For me, this pervasive attitude, that we have no choice about the increased amount of energy we will use, is the most frightening thing about the world situation. Of course we have a choice though not an easy one. We can use less energy by conserving more, being more efficient, and dare I say it, consuming less and having less children. We could even find more satisfying ways to live. If our "energy requirements" continue to rise at the present rate, the world will become a very unpleasant and difficult place to live.
My thoughts are with the people in Japan coping with so much devastation and loss.
Best,
Mitchell
-
Hi Edmund,
Hopefully you are pessimistic. The first couple of days were most critical, IMHO.
Best regards
Erik
Population density in Japan is extremely high. If radioactive materials get released into the atmosphere to a significant degree, then the 20 million or so people living in the Tokyo area 200 miles away are in trouble. This is the elephant in the room.
Edmund
-
It seems that it was designed to take a 5m high tsunami, the one that occured on March 11th was apparently around 10m in that area.
Sorry to post a link in french, but http://isterre.fr/article482.html explains well the problem with tsunami risk management : to put it simply, such an earthquake wasn't expected.
More exactly, it wasn't expected that several segments of the fault could break together (think about a surface of 500km by 100km, and a displacement of a few to 10m).
The earthquake itself was distant and deep, and so the paraseismic buildings could reasonably cope with it, but the tsunami itself was proportional to the hugeness of the seism, without much to dampen it.
NB Glad to hear you're well!
-
Sorry to post a link in french, but http://isterre.fr/article482.html explains well the problem with tsunami risk management : to put it simply, such an earthquake wasn't expected.
More exactly, it wasn't expected that several segments of the fault could break together (think about a surface of 500km by 100km, and a displacement of a few to 10m).
The earthquake itself was distant and deep, and so the paraseismic buildings could reasonably cope with it, but the tsunami itself was proportional to the hugeness of the seism, without much to dampen it.
NB Glad to hear you're well!
That's a curious point. I wonder if geologists are reconsidering their risk models and structural engineers preparedness like economists are due to long tails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail). If an event is expected to happen every 10,000 years it is rare, but inevitable.
-
Thanks, Doug. :) I appreciated your post for its appeal to reason as well.
-
To put things into perspective, a radiation dose chart:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
The chart contains Fukushima plant radiation as well.
-
To put things into perspective, a radiation dose chart:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
The chart contains Fukushima plant radiation as well.
Now that's an inconvenient truth.
-
The chart contains Fukushima plant radiation as well.
As is stands now...the Japan emergency isn't over yet...and those workers who are trying to bring the reactors (and spent fuel) under control are seriously risking very high doses of radiation and their very lives...the chart listed above doesn't really count for those workers because we don't really know what their individual exposures were/are yet.
-
Maybe you are french? Every time something happens, the french media start looking at the role of the other media rather than try and establish facts on the ground. Nombrilisme (navel-centerdness) is what the french call this behavior of the french press looking at the press :)
I think I used to be a scientist (in France Polytechnique is considered a decent scientific institution although it is unknown outside France) and I have taken a few courses in some science subjects when much younger, and about 5 minutes of looking at the media would make me run as far as possible from Fukushima as humanly possible. It's impressive that you think differently.
As long as it is not necessary to leave Tokyo, it will be possible to leave Tokyo. When it will be necessary, it won't be possible.
Edmund
Hello my friends,
Just a quick message to confirm that my wife and I are indeed doing well. I do appreciate your concern! We have been in Osaka for a few days and currently intend to move back to Tokyo on Monday.
Our own situation is comfortable in absolute term and shamefully so compared to what folks in Northern Japan are now facing. We are now looking at ways to help.
Regarding the nuclear thing. The situation in Fukushima has indeed shown some signs of improvement but remains serious. We have now basically accepted the fact that there would be no clear cut miracle with a sharp transition from disaster to normal. It is going to take more time and there are going to be a certain level of impacts that will vary gradually depending on the distance from the source. I do not believe that Tokyo will be affected in a major way, it seems more likely to have a limited increase of ambient radioactivity for some time. How much and how long is unclear but most experts do not anticipate any negative effect on health outside a narrow area surrounding the Fukushima plants.
Today, there is a growing irritation in Japan regarding the cheap sensationalism of the WW media. We are getting tired of reading mild disappointment in the eyes of commentators when there is no new explosion to report on or a drop in radioactivity. Let's face it, it looks like CNN would really prefer this to stay hot as long as possible. BBC World is once more the international media outlet coming very far on top of the rest of the herd.
Many people from different nationalities and background I have spoken with these past few days consider this crisis to seal the death of journalism as we have known it, more so than the death of Nuclear technology. I know understand how millions of people have felt all these years about being reported upon that way. We do of course understand though that some of that is the result of the work performed by different lobbies with vested interests, for or against Nuclear energy, for or against a healthy Japanese economy,...
A lot of positive things can also be seen though. Many countries have really tried to help Japan in various ways, we do feel a huge solidarity from citizens from various countries that have started to provide huge amounts of money to help with the reconstruction. That really is moving.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
TEPCO is reporting on the doses and what doses are regarded acceptable. Initially one single employee had a dose of 100 millisievert but now TEPCO raised the limit to 150 millisievert. Those does rates would not cause acute radiation sickness nor would they lead to a detectable increase in cancer rates. No doubt the work is dangerous, anyway.
Best regards
Erik
As is stands now...the Japan emergency isn't over yet...and those workers who are trying to bring the reactors (and spent fuel) under control are seriously risking very high doses of radiation and their very lives...the chart listed above doesn't really count for those workers because we don't really know what their individual exposures were/are yet.
-
I think I used to be a scientist (in France Polytechnique is considered a decent scientific institution although it is unknown outside France) and I have taken a few courses in some science subjects when much younger, and about 5 minutes of looking at the media would make me run as far as possible from Fukushima as humanly possible.
5 minutes of looking at the media would make me want to run as far as possible from newspaper offices. The level of half-baked scientific pontificating, based almost entirely on ignorance, is staggering. Even the BBC, normally at least semi-responsible, has been scaremongering to an alarming degree, desperate to talk to anyone, no matter how ignorant, who can speak English. A few days ago Newsnight, their flagship news analytical programme, discussed the situation in the reactor with a Japanese concert pianist, a Japanese writer and a Japanese actress who once appeared in a play about the Kobe earthquake. Ye Gods.
And yes, I do have a scientific education.
Jeremy
-
As long as it is not necessary to leave Tokyo, it will be possible to leave Tokyo. When it will be necessary, it won't be possible.
Same thing with ordering Geiger counters. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
p.s.: I am not French by the way
-
It's a small world and just about anywhere most of us have friends and associates in most areas of the world, so when a tragedy like this hits, it hits close to home.
My heart goes out for everyone that is suffering through this catastrophe and we're doing what we can to help.
After talking to people we know, there is a lot of frustration and some fear with in correct information.
Some of it probably is non professional reporting, though a lot of it comes from the crisis itself, as things change quickly and verifying rumors is much more difficult that starting one.
The upside, if there is an upside, is the Japanese are a strong, sophisticated and proud culture that will make it right in time.
JR
-
The BBC report today re the nuclear situation is more encouraging... but, with the wind in the right direction, hopefully most of the nuclear contamination will blow away - but how much Agriculture is there in the area, and how long will it be before the Food from the area is safe to eat? (farms in the UK ere affected by Chernobyl.)
...but has everybody forgotten about the earthquake and tsunami?
The UK GNP dipped because we had one snowstorm - but the effect on the Japanese economy must be considerable - even if most of the population and Industry is in or South of Tokyo.
-
I work in Tokyo also and it was a day off for me when the quake hit. People were generally calm and disciplined, one of the reasons I like working for a Japanese airline, as a culture, they are disciplined and hard working. I was on an overnight in Nagoya when the central Japan quake hit and had just landed in Ibaraki when a 3rd quake hit. Ibaraki is about 70 kilometers south of the fukushima reactor and some had concerns flying in and out of Ibaraki. In general one usually has 2 or 3 infants onboard, these flights we had 35 to 50! many mothers, children and infants. Although some refused to fly these flights I found them rewording. I don't think there is a concern for the curent level of radiation it is the potential catastrophe if something went wrong in the future. Most of my expat friends sent their families home as a precaution. The sunami devistation is unbelievable some think in the end 40,000 casualties :'( we have some flight attendants that still have not made contact with their families.
I will however spend my days off back in Hawaii!
Marc
-
How near normality is Japan now?
-
How near normality is Japan now?
It depends where in Japan. Situation is basically normal in Tokyo and less and less so the closer you get to the affected areas in the North East.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can't imagine that anything like "normalcy" will be achieved in the Northeast for a very long time.
Eric
-
And with fresh quakes since the big sunami one, normal seems a distant concept.
I think I heard there are over 50 nuclear power plants in Japan; the mind boggles at the faith in human workmanship.
Rob C
-
Bernard
I'm wearing a dosimeter while I fly just to be safe and all the research that was done after Chernobyl indicates red wine is much more effective than potassium iodide for protection against radiation, so drink up! I've got several Ibarake flights this month and flying to Haneda from Chitose they vector us close to Fukushima so I'm sure I'm breathing more of that fine air than most.
Marc
-
Bernard
I'm wearing a dosimeter while I fly just to be safe and all the research that was done after Chernobyl indicates red wine is much more effective than potassium iodide for protection against radiation, so drink up! I've got several Ibarake flights this month and flying to Haneda from Chitose they vector us close to Fukushima so I'm sure I'm breathing more of that fine air than most.
Marc
The risk is non-existent (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9656.html). And here I hoped media had already moved to the next Bugaboo Of The Month.
You will get more radiation from the flight itself (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html): there is less atmosphere to protect you from cosmic radiation than at ground level *. Not to mention the "normal" pollution you breath in on the way to the airport, in big part thanks to the most dangerous power production technology which kills more people per year than nuclear power has ever done (including nuclear bombs): coal.
* just realized that's probably not reassuring for someone who carries a dosimeter... The dosage you get from flying planes as a profession is not a significant risk factor (http://xkcd.com/radiation/).
-
The nuclear vs fossil fuel debate will continue to rage while the life support capacity of the planet continues to be consumed by both approaches . There is a natural balancing function (put any name you wish to it) that has been operating from day one which will eventually bring about some form of stability ; as always . Technology and general understanding are pluses , but man's combined wisdom does not make him significantly less subject to the effects of unanticipated developments than are lower order life forms (there is so much more we don't know than that we do) . In critical areas of choice , emotion seems to override reason , so with full awareness of that fact I have hope that (in descending order of importance in regard to not unrelated probabilities) : The world population explosion can be stabilized soon and painlessly ; Negotiation will be able to trump armed conflict ; Various forms of disaster can be bypassed during the process of bringing about a situation whereby a world population is willing and able to function effectively using only benign firms of energy production (solar wind etc.) .
-
You will get more radiation
I am glad things are getting back to normal for you in Tokyo, Bernard.
My wife works with someone who lost both parents... but the most significant disaster was not the nuclear incident, nor the quake, but the Tsunami?
-
The risk is non-existent (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9656.html). And here I hoped media had already moved to the next Bugaboo Of The Month.
You will get more radiation from the flight itself (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html): there is less atmosphere to protect you from cosmic radiation than at ground level *. Not to mention the "normal" pollution you breath in on the way to the airport, in big part thanks to the most dangerous power production technology which kills more people per year than nuclear power has ever done (including nuclear bombs): coal.
* just realized that's probably not reassuring for someone who carries a dosimeter... The dosage you get from flying planes as a profession is not a significant risk factor (http://xkcd.com/radiation/).
I wasn't concerned until they pulled our airplanes off line to decontaminate the engines (radiation) and change the HEPA filters (all the air you breath in an aircraft is first ingested in the compressor section of the engine!) No company would cancel flights and perform unnecessary maintenance unless there was a good reason. So for $72 I have 6 dosimeters for 6 months of monitoring. I'll be able to sleep better that way. Marc
ps I agree the increase in radiation that a pilot is exposed to in a career should do no harm I do know some pilots that will not fly above 30,000 ft because of the increased radiation. A bigger concern are the new Xray machines that the US is starting to use they haven't reached Hawaii yet thank God!
-
The risk is non-existent (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9656.html). And here I hoped media had already moved to the next Bugaboo Of The Month.
You will get more radiation from the flight itself (http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html): there is less atmosphere to protect you from cosmic radiation than at ground level *. Not to mention the "normal" pollution you breath in on the way to the airport, in big part thanks to the most dangerous power production technology which kills more people per year than nuclear power has ever done (including nuclear bombs): coal.
* just realized that's probably not reassuring for someone who carries a dosimeter... The dosage you get from flying planes as a profession is not a significant risk factor (http://xkcd.com/radiation/).
The radiation emitted in Japan is serious, far from turning to normality within some weeks. I wonder if you´ll love your cancer like your nukes.
http://theconversation.edu.au/articles/just-in-case-you-missed-it-heres-why-radiation-is-a-health-hazard-315
-
The radiation emitted in Japan is serious, far from turning to normality within some weeks. I wonder if you´ll love your cancer like your nukes.
http://theconversation.edu.au/articles/just-in-case-you-missed-it-heres-why-radiation-is-a-health-hazard-315
I skimmed through the article, and all it did include was alarmism and often irrelevant figures, with zero information on the risk Fukushima radiation presents to humans.
Funny (?) thing how they neglected to complete the passage "the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, for instance, has resulted in an epidemic of thyroid cancer with 6,500 children affected so far" with the rather relevant survivability figure: 99% (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf).
Once again: coal kills an order of a magnitude more people than Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and the two nuclear bombs dropped in Japan combined each year.
Keep it coming, I'm not letting the misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and FUD get through here.
-
feppe, are you in danger of being caught wearing blinkers?
Rob C
-
I am mostly still in favor of Nuclear power but I don't believe it makes sense to let corporations operate reactors with profitability as a key concern.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
feppe, are you in danger of being caught wearing blinkers?
Rob C
If by "blinkers" you mean "blinders," I like the new, mangled English ;)
In good ol' debate fashion go ahead and attack the messenger, not the message. I'm the one providing much-needed perspective with cited information, while many others (including you) are just passionately regurgitating media's anti-nuclear hysteria.
It is you, sir, who's wearing the blinders.
-
If by "blinkers" you mean "blinders," I like the new, mangled English ;)
In good ol' debate fashion go ahead and attack the messenger, not the message. I'm the one providing much-needed perspective with cited information, while many others (including you) are just passionately regurgitating media's anti-nuclear hysteria.
It is you, sir, who's wearing the blinders.
Well, your latest information was copublished by the IAEA, which might be a bit biased? It is easy to find different conclusions regarding Chernobyl from various authors with profound knowledge. I did not attack you, but I have to admit that I don´t understand your point of view and your argumentation. Coal has its specific problems, but this has nothing to do with the topic. The radiation is serious, the accident in Fukushima was set to level 7 on the international scale now and the whole thing is still not at end. I am far from hysteria and I don´t try to change your opinion.
-
... but the most significant disaster was not the nuclear incident, nor the quake, but the Tsunami?
Dick,
Yes - the aftermath of the tsunami itself is simply beyond words, and just by visual observation gives you trauma even as an outsider who didn't experience its initial wrath. There are still 15,000 souls missing - which horrifically gnaws at the back of everyone's minds, as well as 100,000s of displaced folks. The nuclear crisis though, no matter what the armchair pundits say, is quite a real and ongoing threat to Japan, and moreover to the economy and socio-psychological stability which is so vital to our recovery. I spent 21 years in the US Navy as a submariner, living and working literally alongside a nuclear reactor, and working with nuclear weapons - I'm not afraid of radiation if its managed properly, and well know its limits and hazards. But even with all my experience I'm still quite fearful of the outcome and now strongly question at least Japan's safe management of nuclear power moving forward. And for those skeptics - yes its very prudent to wear a dosimeter here, Marc is quite fortunate to have access to one. Where the Fukushima Daiichi crisis will lead we won't know for many months to come, in the meantime its a bit tedious having to watch webcams and outside radiological monitoring in the absence of being given real data and status from TEPCO and the Government. As for the quakes - those are also getting tiring, we've had at least 5 major aftershocks just today - the strongest event to happen in Tokyo since 1923 occurred this morning. On a positive note I'm somewhat reassured by the quake resistant engineering put into the infrastructure, and have more faith than ever before in the integrity of buildings, roads, etc., and even my creaky 50 year old house. Its also oddly intriguing to be presented with unique challenges like how to store 200 liters of water (in case the tap water is contaminated with Iodine and Cesium again) in a manner which can survive the ongoing jolts and wobbles of the earthquakes, let alone trying to find out the estimated plume of volcanic ash Mt. Fuji would produce should it somehow be seismically triggered into an eruption (the 4th threat vector not mentioned in foreign media). In the end though we're all here just trying to resume normal lives, and no matter if a swarm of locusts arrive tomorrow - we're at least alive and thriving - unlike the dead and missing to the North of us as a result of the tsunami.
Today I was supposed to meet Marc here in Tokyo for the first time but had to cancel due to the aftershock - but hopefully will soon. Then I can sit with someone and discuss things like IQ180s, WRS, Hartblei Cams, and learn more about photography, while taking a break from our triad of demon disasters. Would be great if Bernard could join as well!
Also in a way related to photography - whenever disaster happens (hurricane, tsunami, fire, whatever) people always say the most precious valuables lost were photographs. We're seeing that here as well. I'm considering somehow, when the time is appropriate, to use my new IQ and 645DF to shoot free portraits for displaced people and families. I've never shot portraiture before, but want to give it a go - hope the LL forums can help when the time comes to do so! Speaking of which has anyone heard a firm shipping date for IQ backs?
--Brett
P.S. - if people really want to contribute to Japan in a positive manner - go out and buy a Japanese camera or a lens, or a bottle of sake!!
-
Thanks for saying a lot of good things!
Erik
Dick,
Yes - the aftermath of the tsunami itself is simply beyond words, and just by visual observation gives you trauma even as an outsider who didn't experience its initial wrath. There are still 15,000 souls missing - which horrifically gnaws at the back of everyone's minds, as well as 100,000s of displaced folks. The nuclear crisis though, no matter what the armchair pundits say, is quite a real and ongoing threat to Japan, and moreover to the economy and socio-psychological stability which is so vital to our recovery. I spent 21 years in the US Navy as a submariner, living and working literally alongside a nuclear reactor, and working with nuclear weapons - I'm not afraid of radiation if its managed properly, and well know its limits and hazards. But even with all my experience I'm still quite fearful of the outcome and now strongly question at least Japan's safe management of nuclear power moving forward. And for those skeptics - yes its very prudent to wear a dosimeter here, Marc is quite fortunate to have access to one. Where the Fukushima Daiichi crisis will lead we won't know for many months to come, in the meantime its a bit tedious having to watch webcams and outside radiological monitoring in the absence of being given real data and status from TEPCO and the Government. As for the quakes - those are also getting tiring, we've had at least 5 major aftershocks just today - the strongest event to happen in Tokyo since 1923 occurred this morning. On a positive note I'm somewhat reassured by the quake resistant engineering put into the infrastructure, and have more faith than ever before in the integrity of buildings, roads, etc., and even my creaky 50 year old house. Its also oddly intriguing to be presented with unique challenges like how to store 200 liters of water (in case the tap water is contaminated with Iodine and Cesium again) in a manner which can survive the ongoing jolts and wobbles of the earthquakes, let alone trying to find out the estimated plume of volcanic ash Mt. Fuji would produce should it somehow be seismically triggered into an eruption (the 4th threat vector not mentioned in foreign media). In the end though we're all here just trying to resume normal lives, and no matter if a swarm of locusts arrive tomorrow - we're at least alive and thriving - unlike the dead and missing to the North of us as a result of the tsunami.
Today I was supposed to meet Marc here in Tokyo for the first time but had to cancel due to the aftershock - but hopefully will soon. Then I can sit with someone and discuss things like IQ180s, WRS, Hartblei Cams, and learn more about photography, while taking a break from our triad of demon disasters. Would be great if Bernard could join as well!
Also in a way related to photography - whenever disaster happens (hurricane, tsunami, fire, whatever) people always say the most precious valuables lost were photographs. We're seeing that here as well. I'm considering somehow, when the time is appropriate, to use my new IQ and 645DF to shoot free portraits for displaced people and families. I've never shot portraiture before, but want to give it a go - hope the LL forums can help when the time comes to do so! Speaking of which has anyone heard a firm shipping date for IQ backs?
--Brett
P.S. - if people really want to contribute to Japan in a positive manner - go out and buy a Japanese camera or a lens, or a bottle of sake!!
-
Well, your latest information was copublished by the IAEA, which might be a bit biased? It is easy to find different conclusions regarding Chernobyl from various authors with profound knowledge. I did not attack you, but I have to admit that I don´t understand your point of view and your argumentation. Coal has its specific problems, but this has nothing to do with the topic. The radiation is serious, the accident in Fukushima was set to level 7 on the international scale now and the whole thing is still not at end. I am far from hysteria and I don´t try to change your opinion.
The report is co-authored by IAEA, WHO and UNDP. If you have sources which you deem more reliable, I'm all ears.
I was referring to Rob in my comment about ad hominems.
I've been explicit about my point of view from the beginning: Fukushima nuclear disaster gets wildly disproportionate mindshare compared to the death and destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b-2iByqHVI&feature=player_embedded) (arresting footage of what the tsunami did to an entire city within minutes).
In the big picture, the extremely limited risk posed by nuclear power is dwarfed by the widespread death and destruction caused by other power-production methods, namely coal mining and burning.
We (humanity) would be better served with rational discourse based on facts, rather than a hysteria fuelled by clueless journalists, lobbies pushing their agenda at all costs, and ignorance. I know it's perhaps too much to ask in the world of the 5-second soundbite and Scare-Of-The-Week, but unlike some here I'm not a misanthrope and have hope that reason triumphs in the end.
I'm hoping Olympus releases a serious MFT body soon to replace my E-PL1 so I'll have a great excuse to contribute to their recovery :)
-
If by "blinkers" you mean "blinders," I like the new, mangled English ;)
In good ol' debate fashion go ahead and attack the messenger, not the message. I'm the one providing much-needed perspective with cited information, while many others (including you) are just passionately regurgitating media's anti-nuclear hysteria.
It is you, sir, who's wearing the blinders.
Almost touché but not quite!
Check out the Concise Oxford English Dictionary; I do mean blinkers as in worn by Trigger to keep him unaware of what's going down amongst the injuns.
And no, I'm not consumed by 'media frenzy' either: just using my own basic knowledge of school physics, common sense and a little observation thrown in for good measure.
;-)
Rob C
-
Almost touché but not quite!
Check out the Concise Oxford English Dictionary; I do mean blinkers as in worn by Trigger to keep him unaware of what's going down amongst the injuns.
Silly Brits with their silly English :P
-
Today I was supposed to meet Marc here in Tokyo for the first time but had to cancel due to the aftershock - but hopefully will soon. Then I can sit with someone and discuss things like IQ180s, WRS, Hartblei Cams, and learn more about photography, while taking a break from our triad of demon disasters. Would be great if Bernard could join as well!
Sure, please send me a PM once the place and time are known. :)
I will probably not be around during the coming weekends due to an opportunity to do some bits of voluntary work up North though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Check out the Concise Oxford English Dictionary; I do mean blinkers as in worn by Trigger to keep him unaware of what's going down amongst the injuns...
Yet another advantage for a Mac: a simple rightclick over the word and the pop-up dictionary would say this:
"...( blinkers) another term for blinders...."
:)
-
I do not know enough about nuclear plants or radiation. Hence, without comment:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/11/nuclear-apologists-radiation
Kumar
-
Just to focus on where the debate really is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model sums it quite decently.
In a few words, life is drown in continuous low levels of radiation since the beginning of it and did survive, so one may bring the hypothesis that these levels of radiation (such as the ones being measured outside the Fukushima NPP) are not harmful.
Some studies actually go towards they being beneficial, but in any cases, we're talking about such tiny effects that statistics are inconclusive.
-
Yet another advantage for a Mac: a simple rightclick over the word and the pop-up dictionary would say this:
"...( blinkers) another term for blinders...."
:)
Reference, again, to the COED would show this: (blinders) North American blinkers on a horse's bridle.
Which only shows up the Mac's North American heritage, nothing more. Of course, there is always the perverse argument that Keith Richards is a more genuine r'n'r guitar player than Chuck Berry, but you can probably discount that for yourself... I'd definitely give the native the edge, especially in the case of the Scottish bagpipe players, where the French had an even better edge for them all, auld alliances notwithstanding.
Oh the tangled web.
Regarding my ailing tv: today it switched on for the news, but in glorious black and white.
Rob C
-
The problem is not so much the nuclear power plants, but the waste storage. Massive amounts of highly radioactive nuclear waste is produces every day, and remains harmful for about 100000 years. How do you store this, and where.
The solution most countries implement so far is storage above ground. But lets say a tsunami, earthquake, war or something entirely different hits such a storage facility?
How do we produce containers that can keep the waste inside for such a time span, man has not produced anything with anything close to this longevity... metal containers corrcode, plastics are not suited, concrete and lead erodes, etc...
I recommend wathing Michael Madsen film Into Eternity, about nuclear waste storage in Finland. It is an eye opener to the problem we are creating for ourselves with nuclear waste. Here is a link to wikipedia about the film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)
-
For what it's worth, my opinion is that it (nuke) is more than a step too far into a technology that was never thought through because too many vested interests were waving green flags. Or, if it had been thought through, the same flags smothered the doubters. 'Twas ever thus, from unnecessary lead in petrol to genetically modified crops: big bucks are the only real motivation behind the implementation.
Solution? Birth control and vote control. If you can't prove you can think, then you shouldn't have a vote; if your prick is overactive it should be tethered to the side of your leg, or, preferrably, kept in your pocket in a plastic envelope just for old time's sake.
Of course, it all comes down to the concept of family, marriage and responsibility, but with these values mocked by the new intelligentsia, what hope for the rest of mankind? None; it'll sink and drown in its own moral swill. Everything ends in a state of corruption.
Rob C
-
The problem is not so much the nuclear power plants, but the waste storage. Massive amounts of highly radioactive nuclear waste is produces every day, and remains harmful for about 100000 years. How do you store this, and where.
The solution most countries implement so far is storage above ground. But lets say a tsunami, earthquake, war or something entirely different hits such a storage facility?
That is indeed one of the most difficult things to solve. But the solution exists for future reactors: breeder reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor).
From the article:
a normal reactor consumes less than 1% of the natural uranium that begins the fuel cycle, while a breeder can burn almost all of it (minus re-processing losses), also generating less waste for equal amounts of energy[1]. Breeders can be designed to use thorium, which is more abundant than uranium
Unfortunately these types of reactors don't receive the R&D funding they deserve. Fusion power would probably be even more efficient, safer and cleaner, but it is in its infancy, and even with massive R&d spending wouldn't be able to meet the accelerating growth in power demand of China, India, Brazil and other emerging countries which are quickly going middle-class and urbanizing.
-
Solution? Birth control and vote control. If you can't prove you can think, then you shouldn't have a vote; if your prick is overactive it should be tethered to the side of your leg, or, preferrably, kept in your pocket in a plastic envelope just for old time's sake.
Would you like to propose that to the mom in developing world whose only safety net in old age is that one of her children survives into adulthood and earns enough to support her? Or perhaps we should adopt China's one child policy?
Affluence (http://www.bit.ly/baasqj) and closely related education level (http://www.bit.ly/fmASy5) are potent at limiting birth rate, and probably the only widely ethically acceptable solutions. But both require time and energy (electricity), and lots of it.
-
If we (humanity) are not capable to resolve very soon our energetic issues, our demography, our economy based on fast profits and speculation, the damages we inflict to our environement and the other alive creatures; if we can't managed to eradicate those absurd religious, racial, patriotical concepts and can't live in harmony with our differences, if we insist in exploiting 80% of the population to manage a high standart of living for the 20%, standart that's based only into more profit regardless of the damages for the planet and our proper future generation; this attempt (humanity) will simply not survive and all the survivor creatures of this planet will then be releived from the plague.
-
Would you like to propose that to the mom in developing world whose only safety net in old age is that one of her children survives into adulthood and earns enough to support her? Or perhaps we should adopt China's one child policy? Affluence (http://www.bit.ly/baasqj) and closely related education level (http://www.bit.ly/fmASy5) are potent at limiting birth rate, and probably the only widely ethically acceptable solutions. But both require time and energy (electricity), and lots of it.
I'm not sure it works like that, feppe; from personal observation by dint of living in India, begging and the mutilation of babes to make them more convincingly effective props is hardly any route to a satisfactory endgame. Worse, it adds layer upon layer of responsibility onto a state that can either choose to ignore it or, should it feel obliged to act, can find itself bankrupt from the experience. I would be surprised to learn that the legions of street kids have any old relative whom they are going to help in dotage...
Regarding the Chinese model, at least one has to accept that they have faced the problem with some action; all we do in the west is expand the health care service ever wider to include the world's strays, thus diluting what would otherwise be available for our own desperate.
The mess is getting greater all the time.
You see it reflected in the refusal to accept reductions in wages, benefits or anything else. Everybody says the problems are huge, but nobody is willing to accept that we all have to be part of the solution, and I hardly exclude myself from the myopia as I complain as loudly as the next guy at the zero interest that the fruit of a life of careful living now provides.
My mother had to spend the last few years of her life in a retirement home; do you imagine she was happy that it cost her, personally, many thousands of pounds for what most of her fellow residents were getting gratis? If you want morality, it's difficult to find; on the other hand, irony is everywhere, so maybe, on balance, that's all right then...
Rob C
-
I'm not sure it works like that, feppe; from personal observation by dint of living in India, begging and the mutilation of babes to make them more convincingly effective props is hardly any route to a satisfactory endgame. Worse, it adds layer upon layer of responsibility onto a state that can either choose to ignore it or, should it feel obliged to act, can find itself bankrupt from the experience. I would be surprised to learn that the legions of street kids have any old relative whom they are going to help in dotage...
I didn't imply that I advocate having multiple kids in the developing world, just why they do so. Also, birth control is rare, expensive, and socially, ethically and/or religiously unacceptable in many places.
-
... If you can't prove you can think, then you shouldn't have a vote...
CNN: Don't let ignorant people vote (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-12/opinion/granderson.ignorant.vote_1_ignorant-voters-political-system-ignorant-people?_s=PM:OPINION)