A quick look at Google Maps confirms that Narita is nowhere near Okuma (the town where the Fukushima reactor is located). It is absurdly unlikely that the detected radiation levels had anything to do with the Fukushima reactors (in fact, I would wager to guess that it's just Chinese officials being overly-sensitive, and there actually being nothing to worry about).Thanks Brodda Thep. Exactly the kind of information I was looking for. However, I can´t find a reference to mox or plutonium on that document so I think the calculations may not be sufficient for the fuel used in unit 3 of Fukushima.
Now... a business perspective on the effects of radiation even to those that are not in health danger.
Al Jazeera reports:
So also the radiation part of the disaster is already affecting export business
Earthquake/Tsunami in Japan
- Thread starter DuckThor Evil
- Start date
Once you have a small pool of material hot enough to melt down rods it can pull in more.
Really anyone from the industry pretending MOX storage pools are known safe when springing a leak is just downright lying I think. Hell even with plain uranium I don't see anything in recent literature which prevents the meltdown due to oxygen starved fire mentioned in my link. AFAICS nothing has changed since that time, you have water or you have the potential for disaster.
Last edited by a moderator:
Another neat visualization of the death rate of nuclear compared to other power generation technologies:
http://www.discourse.net/2011/03/death-rate-per-watt-produced.html
http://www.discourse.net/2011/03/death-rate-per-watt-produced.html
I wonder what the death rate for solar or wind or hydro would be?
perhaps a turbine fell on someones head.
The main issue with nuclear is if an major accident happens (chernobyl style or worse) in a densely populated area it will kill lots & leave the place inhabitable for decades.
The odds of getting killed by a metor strike are higher than being killed in a terrorist attack!
yet if you graphed both together of how many ppl have died from each method in the last 50years , yould think the opposite
Has there been anyone killed by a metoer strike in living memory?
Well, as I think Fukushima shows rather well, the design of plants even forty years ago was good enough to keep the reactor from doing severe damage to the surrounding area. Reactor designs have only gotten better since then.
Besides, I don't think anybody would suggest building a nuclear plant in an urban center. These things do tend to go at least a little distance away from cities, where even a worst-case scenario isn't all that bad.
The worst case scenarios are pretty fucking bad. How far removed we are/were ... we will probably never know for sure.
DarthShader
Regular
Hydro can be pretty dangerous too - http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/hydroelectric-dam-failures-fujinuma-dam.html
With solar installed on rooftops, people from them, also get electoluced. To a lesser extent, that would be also for wind, plus the danger for birds.
Here's a Deaths per TWh rundown:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
I will grant that the worst case scenario for a nuclear plant is always going to be worse than for other sorts of power plants (except perhaps hydroelectric), but practice has demonstrated that even given the rare nasty accident, nuclear is still the safest power generation scheme out there.
The biggest wind turbine currently rates at 15MW - real average output is then usually higher, something like 20-30MW, depending on wind-force. That's also partly a problem - not all electricity grids can handle the spikes in generated electricity or do anything useful with them, so extra work is necessary when hooking these monsters up. But it is certainly not completely out of the question as a replacement for Japan's shoreline nuclear reactors.
There's no question that nuclear power has some real advantages, but the worst case scenario is quite horrible, so I still think alternatives should always be considered and developed further. The more nuclear power is used, the more likely a problem will eventually happen. Japan here too teaches you something:
1. there are always things that aren't considered. In this case, the temporary storage of cores outside of the reactor in the 'cooling bath' was a nasty surprise, and there are various reasons for why security around that will need to increase (what happens if you dump a plane full of kerosine on that? Surely at the very least the water will evaporate and/or leak away).
2. there are always 'optimal conditions' with proper security and guidelines that when implemented correctly reduce risk to near zero. But then human error, commercial negligence, financial reality and whatever else comes into play and things get messy. This too seems to have happened in Japan.
I agree that nuclear is much safer on average.
The image in your link seem to be based on this. The bias here is thick and sticky.
The author claims that there are no fatalities from nuclear mining since most is done by in-situ leaching, which is flat out false. In-situ leaching is only done a few places in the U.S., where the rock permits it. Most uranium mines are regular hard rock mines, open pit or underground. Underground hard rock mining is still safer than coal mining, but to claim zero fatalities is pushing it.
The author also fiddles with the Chernobyl numbers. He claims that of the 4000 thyroid cancer victims, only 9 deaths resulted. It is known that 57 people died in the accident or directly after. The fate of most of the liquidators is unknown. According to UNSCEAR there has been 6000 cases of thyroid cancer as a result of the accident. The 30 year survival rate for thyroid cancer operations is rather good at 92%. This still means that around 500 people will die as a result of Chernobyl.
The coal fatalities are skewed by the appaling state of chinese mining safety. China mines three times the coal the U.S. does (3000Mt vs. 1000Mt) but has 200 times the fatalities (~6000 vs 30) per year.
Of course, even with all these factors in mind, coal still has a fatality rate of ~100 times vs nuclear (but not 4000 as the image suggests). - AGW not withstanding
Cheers
Out of interest, are you counting the chinese mining safety as a factor? And if so how are you adjusting for it?The coal fatalities are skewed by the appaling state of chinese mining safety. China mines three times the coal the U.S. does (3000Mt vs. 1000Mt) but has 200 times the fatalities (~6000 vs 30) per year.
Of course, even with all these factors in mind, coal still has a fatality rate of ~100 times vs nuclear (but not 4000 as the image suggests). - AGW not withstanding
For those not taking wind energy seriously:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39324391/ns/us_news-environment/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/26/offshore-turbine-britain
And yes, those quoted figures in that graph are certainly suspect to say the least.
By the way, is that 92% survival rate current or for the year Chernobyl happened? Because these figures change a lot over time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39324391/ns/us_news-environment/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/26/offshore-turbine-britain
And yes, those quoted figures in that graph are certainly suspect to say the least.
By the way, is that 92% survival rate current or for the year Chernobyl happened? Because these figures change a lot over time.
By the way, is that 92% survival rate current or for the year Chernobyl happened? Because these figures change a lot over time.
the 92% is the 30 year survival rate of thyroid cancer victims, and a general medical statistic not specific to Chernobul.
That is 8% suffers a relapse within 30 years and dies from it. That's 8% of the 6000 thyroid cancer cases that are caused by Chernobyl.
Cheers
Japan produces 47000 megawatts of nuclear. A 300 MW facility you linked takes up 22 square miles. Scaled up to replace the Japanese nuclear power you'd need 3500 square miles of wind turbines. And you'd still be needing to store power somewhere. And the offshore Wind Turbines are actually substantially more expensive. And exactly how many of those things do you think would survive a tsunami?
Those 40 year old nuclear reactors aren't nearly as safe as more modern ones either.