A preliminary report by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has stated that the response to the Fukushima nuclear incident was "exemplary" and that nobody has been harmed by radiation exposure resulting from it. The report was drafted by an IAEA fact-finding team which has just completed a visit to Japan. The team was …
Now hopefully people can start becoming rational.
And stop the blind panic that comes from any mention of the words 'nuclear' and 'radiation'.
I don't suppose we have final figures on deaths/ injuries from the other areas at the time:
Earthquake/Tsunami, coal/ oil/ gas/ traffic/ flu etc.
Well, it's not in Japan, but...
... there's this.
That's four more than have died so far at Fukushima... and this was just while they were doing a cleanup!
Icon, well, because.
Now hopefully pro nuke lobbyists will face reality
"And stop the blind panic that comes from any mention of the words 'nuclear' and 'radiation'."
So far the only noticeable blind panic has been the pro nuclear lobby rushing to defend their baby from a public that isn't panicking despite the best efforts of the gutter press. Rapidly *losing interest* in supporting a technology that can be cheap OR safe but not both at the same time...
Give it up. Break ground on a new reactor now and by the time it's running even solar voltaic has a good chance of being cheaper. Time has not been kind to nuclear as alternatives drop in price while nuclear can't avoid paying for safety (or bribing their way past it as some believe).
Yes Lewis, of course Lewis.
No mention from you or the IAEA of Tepcos lies (repeats of their past behaviour) about what they do or don't know about the state of the reactors.
No apology from you for repeatedly claiming that all was well when we had substantial signs that the opposite was true, and e.g. you have in fact now been forced to admit that melting of fuel did occur quite early on (because TEPCO and the IAEA said it did).
No mention of the economic impact of the cleanup (TEPCO bankrupt, taxpayers to pay?).
You should hang your head in shame.
For someone who purports to be pro-nuclear, the grain of truth in your writings here (it has not been a radiological disaster although you do your best to ignore the plain evidence that it has been a financial one) have done the industry no favours at all.
You should go back to your Daily Wail !
Clearly you are one of the rabid "nuclear is bad and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise" brigade. You've read into Lewis's articles things that I don't recall reading. I don't recall hearing that all was well, and I do recall there being considerable speculation that fuel had melted. It would appear that pointing out that The China Syndrome was fiction is somehow denying the truth - at least that's how your rantings come across.
The FACTS, acknowledged by IAEA, are that :
No-one was killed or seriously hurt by anything directly related to the reactors - nor is anyone likely to be.
Whilst fuel did melt, it was contained in the reactors as designed to be.
Whilst there were mass evacuations, they were "hard to justify on safety grounds" - in other words they were mostly to pander to idiots who will never accept that anything "nuclear" is anything but armageddon in waiting.
There was probably far more harm caused by the forced evacuation itself that was likely by even the worst estimates of the effects to people if they didn't move.
And all this where something in the order of 15,000 to 20,000 people were killed or are missing after an incredibly large tsunami caused by an incredibly large earthquake.
And after all that I call hypocrite.
The fact that you are reading stuff on the internet, and commenting on it, means that you too are using nuclear power. Unless you are off-grid, then some of your electricity comes from nuclear*, some of the electricity used by all the equipment needed to connect you to the internet comes from nuclear*, a chunk of the power used in making all that equipment came from nuclear*. What didn't come from nuclear will have come, in a large part, from coal (especially manufacturing in China) which spews out massive amounts of radioactive Uranium (amongst other stuff) into the atmosphere.
* It matters not if you buy "green" electricity - that's all greenwash and the leccky you use does NOT all come from where you've been told it does.
And finally, we (all of us) would not be here at all if it weren't for a huge, uncontrolled, unshielded nuclear reactor. Most of us cal it ... "the sun".
What, you mean like the details covered in technical briefings on the IAEA website?
There is always one...
"No apology from you for repeatedly claiming that all was well" Lewis never claimed that all was well, he merely pointed at the ridiculous mass-media hysteria. You were clearly one of those sucked in by it all.
"No mention of the economic impact of the cleanup" It may have escaped your notice, but there was a *massive* earthquake, one of the biggest seen in a generation followed by one of the biggest tidal waves to hit the Japanese coast. Ever. Fukushima is *economically* collateral damage in this. Yes, it's a financial cost that no doubt the Japanese could do without, just like the damaged oil refineries and other coastal chemical plants and refineries, but then they don't fit your agenda, do they?
"You should hang your head in shame." Absolutely not, Lewis can come across a bit smug, but his reporting of this sad and sorry affair has been a beacon in a quagmire of ridiculous tin-hatter FUD.
"For someone who purports to be pro-nuclear, the grain of truth in your writings here (it has not been a radiological disaster although you do your best to ignore the plain evidence that it has been a financial one) have done the industry no favours at all." Like I said, what about all the other coastal chemical industries? Balance mate, you lack it.
I see no problem in Lewis' reporting... he did well to present a rational case amid all the media hysteria surrounding the situation.
I don't recall him ever stating that "all was well" - just that it wasn't anywhere near as bad as was being reported - a point which has now been proven.
Yes, fuel melting did occur, but it wasn't a "meltdown" in the sense that most people interpret that word as containment failure, and so it was a good idea to avoid using such a word even if it was technically accurate.
Are you referring to the economic impact of cleaning up the massive earthquake/tsunami damage? I believe the church should pay that (it was an act of God, wasn't it?).
In contrast to that, I'm sure the nuclear cleanup will be minuscule.
@ Simon Hobson
Nowhere in the IAEA report did it say that the evacuations were, "hard to justify on safety grounds." That is Lewis doing his usual GCSE science level "interpretation" of the report.
In fact, the IAEA report said, "Japan's long-term response, including the evacuation of the area around stricken reactors, has been impressive and well organized." That means that the IAEA considers the decision to evacuate was justified, and may well have saved dozens of lives from the long-term health consequences of radioactive Caesium exposure.
Let's cover this in easy to read lines:
FACT: the IAEA report said, "Japan's long-term response, including the evacuation of the area around stricken reactors, has been impressive and well organized."
INFERENCE: the IAEA considers the decision to evacuate was justified, and may well have saved dozens of lives from the long-term health consequences of radioactive Caesium exposure.
RESULT: Logic fail
No it doesn't. It means the IAEA are happy that the evacuation was executed well. They take no position (in the part you quote, at least) on whether it was necessary or not.
Had there been a containment failure, the evacuation would definitely have been a good thing, but I haven't seen anywhere that the IAEA discussed such speculation.
Hold on. The actual fuel did not melt, it was the metal cladding>>>
...the metal cladding on the fuel rods was melted, or heated beyond tolerance and ceased to hold it's shape. Either way, the fuel pellets were released from the fuel rods, but the actual fuel did *not* melt. that's why you have seen no release of fuel material to the environment.
He did claim a triumph for nucear design.
I don't know what to feel about nuclear energy, but the pro-nuclear lobby are smoking crack, IMNSHO.
Four fatalities in Pembrokeshire. I bet they don't get as much publicity.
Already not main news on the BBC site.
Now then BBC, let me rewrite this for you....
4 people have died and several other have been critically injured after a fire and explosion at an oil refinery in Pembrokeshire at 1820BST on Thursday. 1,234 people are also known to have died in Wales since the time of the incident.
I save all Lewis's posts on Fukushima. They're funny.
Two & half months is a long period over which to establish some facts & spin it up.
The fundamental problem is that a nuclear reactor does not fail safe. Any fossil fuel energy source for a turbine generator immediately burns out when the fuel feed stops. Nuclear requires constant control that requires power: no power = loss of control.
An out of control nuclear power plant is a fearful scenario.
It was inevitable that the reactor cores experienced "meltdown" pretty much immediately, that scenario was constantly avoided in the TEPCO/Gov Japan reports. Maybe they can be excused for that as a means of fear management.
To quote, "TEPCO has already stated that it expects to restart two of the Fukushima reactors in due course", is fine but those will be the two newer reactors somewhat separate from the destroyed units. Again, perception management.
Oil fires magically go out by themselves?
Not true in new reactors
While your statement on needing constant power to maintain cooling is true for the 40 year old reactors at fukushima, it is not something inherent in nuclear power.
Newer reactors do not need power to maintain cooling, and so won't suffer the same issues as at fukushima.
check your facts when posting here.
There are fail safe mechanisms for nuclear reactors. I know this as I studied nuclear physics, but a simple joe search with google would yield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety .You --can-- do that, right?
on another note, the greentards throw all the guilt on nuclear power, while they actually should on their own governments for not promoting more safety and better waste management *almost all the radioactive waste could be rendered non-radioactive with a bit of research.
mine is the one with the geiger counter in the pocket.
Yes, fossile fuel is totally safe.
"Any fossil fuel energy source for a turbine generator immediately burns out when the fuel feed stops."
Yes, and it is also true for all the other operations that is required to bring the fuel to the power plant. For instance, I recall a minor incident in the Gulf of Mexico not that long ago. An oil platform caught fire and damaged the well so that it leaked oil into the ocean. I am quite sure that it immediately closed on it's own.
spin it up?
Will not say that they falsefied any reports or something like that, but it is funny to see that an organisation who first critized EPCO for being very untransparant, now says that the information and openness of all parties is so great... Typical case of `We from the nuclear lobby recommend the nuclear lobby`.
yeahr, but no
As far as i can remember this was not a power plant, just a "factory". Which gave me the following question - please try to be objective if willing to answer my question - What would have been the implicatiuons for the Gulf if Fukushima would have been sunk into that same site? And i am thinking both long and short term, anybody?
Come on, admit it.
How many of you scanned the title and wondered why on earth a Swedish furniture firm were passing judgement over a major nuclear incident?
I know I did....
How about the truth?
It's amazing how difficult it is to get simply pragmatic and honest reports!
This paper from the IAEA is just as ridiculous as the worldwide anti-nuclear panic. This accident is extremely serious and nobody can tell what impact it will eventually have under the plant, especially on the waterbed, in the ocean and on the whole region. On the other hand it is obviously not the foreseen apocalypse and Californians should stop whining.
Why can't we just get a documented report of the damage and potential risks to come. Who has seen a geological map and section with an assessment of the water contamination risk. None? Prove it.
Who has answered in verifiable details the questions about long-term contamination in the neighboring villages, schools?
Lastly, when will populations be considered as cerebrated adults rather than ignorant masses, especially when it comes to life & death issues.
No, It was not exemplary. And I really hope that it will serve in the future to draft a new set of rules for a global democracy of free and responsible brains.
Of course, they should do that right away.
It's far more important than ensuring that the other damage by the quake and tsunami is repaired, after all. These Japanese have no sense of priority.
The shame of impoverished paucity of expectation
> And I really hope that it will serve in the future to draft a new set of rules for a global democracy of free and responsible brains.
I for one would hope for nothing less than the Second Coming of the Alien Grays - which has about the same probability, but will make a much better Hollywood movie. All our utopias are belong to Them.
Not even a small admission of reading it wrong?
The latest findings that the fuel rods melted pretty soon after the tsunami do seem to differ from the line at the time from one Mr L Page that nothing would happen, it would all be fine, and there would be no meaningful change in the state of the fuel.
Y'know, it'd be easier to swallow the rest of the Page line if he'd admit to getting that part wrong, rather than using it as further 'proof' that he was right all along, and really, explosions at nuclear power stations are sufficiently boring that we should just have them one a week for fun.
Please review the available evidence before opening your mouth.
The fuel rod casings reached high enough temperatures to become flexible and fail - they melted. the Fuel pellets on the other hand did not melt (as far as anyone knows). The evidence that the fuel itself did not melt is actually pretty solid because there has been no measurable release of fuel from any of the reactors, only fission products.
Maybe Ze Germans should read this...
Before finally short-sightedly deciding to shut down all their nuclear plants.
Lies and damned lies
Err ... Lewis seems to forget the IAEA giving out about misleading statements from TEPCO. After the recent typhoon there is a serious risk of overflow which will further contaminate the area. There was also 100% failure of the pressure release system in each of the three reactor containment vessels causing - hardly a good result for TEPCO or any other BWR type reactor. All the Mark I reactors should be stopped immediately.
A banjaxed nuke plant with four nuclear reactors out of commission cannot be cleaned up like a broken petrochemical plant so the costs will be horrendous and be considerably more than other parts of the cleanup operation after the tsunami.
Loads of things failed across multiple reactors. Even so, there were no radiation related deaths. Seems clearer than ever that a severely damaged nuclear plant kills fewer people than a coal-fired power station working properly.
It would be good to have an article on Germany's sudden knee-jerk decision to dump all nuclear power in their country in the next few years. I'd like to know where they think they're going to get their energy from!!
"It would be good to have an article on Germany's sudden knee-jerk decision to dump all nuclear power in their country in the next few years. I'd like to know where they think they're going to get their energy from!!"
Probably from the French who product most of their leccy from NUCLEAR.
These knee-jerk reactions are political not realistic.
No answer != No solution. It just means the question wasn't very well presented.
I'm sure you'd like to know a lot of things - try googling them.
If that is too much effort for you - see my post below.
Re: the French
They will make a new decision in about eight years like the Swedes did.
(I cannot blame them for that).
They're only going top have redidential power two days out of seven and...
the whole country will have rolling blackouts to compensate for the lack of electricity generated by wind/Solar/pixy dust renewable sources.
Future German energy sources
Current gas supplies from Russia will increase as the Baltic connector is completed. This tho obviously raises the issue of German energy security being subject to Kremlin demands. The answer to that is an interesting one for ecotards. Germany will encourage and support shale gas extraction in Poland on a large scale. When I say large scale, I mean in sufficient quantities that Germany can then play off Russia and Poland for the cheapest gas price. Future German energy sources will effectively be secure.
Meanwhile, here in the UK we wait to see if either the lights go out first in phased rolling black-outs, or if that scenario is precluded by the arrival of a consensus on the statistical insignificance of minor earthquakes in Blackpool.
"The fundamental problem is that a nuclear reactor does not fail safe"
Firstly remember these were old reactors - newer ones will almost certainly be far safer.
The bigger issue is that fossil fuels are just not safe - far, far more people die mining the coal, oil etc. or from the effects of burning it than from nuclear generated power - not to mention the possible effects of the CO2 emissions!
so melting not significant of catastrophy anymore?
The melting was so well contained, that it wasn't even detected until now. That means that even the melting was not as catastrophic as in the past - which is the a good thing. Don't hang on the word melting, focus on the effect - core melted but not the bottom of the reactor, everything contained! Design must have been well done, kudos.
More nuclear please.
Countries should be investing in more, newer, safer nuclear power stations as oil and gas surely kill far more and decomission the older, less safe nuclear power stations.
AC 12:13 here again.
"you are one of the rabid "nuclear is bad and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise" brigade"
Bad assumption, Simon. You've no idea who I am or what I know (that's why I'm an AC, right, so folk can address the message rather than the messenger). Stick to facts supported by evidence, leave the speculation to Lewis.
"I don't recall hearing that all was well"
It may not have had quite those words but it was certainly the impression Lewis was trying to convey. Feel free to go and re-read the stuff.
"something in the order of 15,000 to 20,000 people were killed or are missing after an incredibly large tsunami caused by an incredibly large earthquake."
Indeed. My sympathy goes out to all those affected, but is neither here nor there in a discussion focusing on TEPCO, IAEA, and Lewis.
"[Lewis] did well to present a rational case amid all the media hysteria surrounding the situation."
Yes there was lots of hysteria and lots of poor journalism. Lewis, or another more rational columnist (Moonbat in the Grauniad?) could have chosen to present a calm rational well argued case backed up by facts. Instead, Lewis did what he does best: he ranted and speculated. How does that help his chosen cause?
"Four fatalities in Pembrokeshire. I bet they don't get as much publicity."
Again, sympathy to those affected. Do fuel terminals (like this one or Buncefield) have as much scope for long term and wide area impact as a nuclear incident?
There'll be real trouble when one of the Pembrokeshire LNG terminals has an incident, but even that won't have long term wide area impact, except some lights will go out till alternative energy supplies can be arranged.
Sheep in Snowdonia still on restricted movement, because of Chernobyl. Long term wide area.
Yes I know modern designs are different. Old ones are tried tested and er proven. New improved ones are by definition things we have little working experience of. But don't let that worry you; let that worry the people paying for and potentially affected by Olkiluoto.
Have a lovely weekend.
"Stick to facts supported by evidence, leave the speculation to Lewis."
"folk can address the message rather than the messenger"
Ok. So your message makes you look like one of the rabid "nuclear is bad and no amount of evidence will convince me otherwise" brigade.
Now, to make sure you enjoy your weekend to the fullest, just take a second to reflect that the worrying caused by the hysteria about the dangers of a nuclear accident – real or projected – have been indicted as being more harmful than the radiation itself. Consider page 21 of this IAEA report on Chernobyl survivors: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf or the reports of vast amounts of salt and iodine tablets being bought after Fukushima: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/fallout-panicbuying-strips-china-stores-of-salt-2244427.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-experts-sound-warning-over-iodine-rush-2242614.html . I am sure you will agree that the stress caused to the people of Olkiluoto by those who have a strongly anti-nuclear agenda will likely be much more harmful than the risk of an accident at reactor number three, which has had many delays and budget overruns to *ensure* its safety standards.
>>but is neither here nor there in a discussion focusing on TEPCO, IAEA, and Lewis
Actually, it is 100% of the whole point. You cannot address Fukushima without looking at what caused it. Tens of thousands of people were killed by the Tsunami, many more made homeless, huge areas contaminated with salt water and industrial chemicals. Stuff which will also need cleaning up.
When you say "My sympathy goes out to all those affected" you sound like a hollow heartless moron. You don't really feel any sympathy, that is clear from your posts since tens of thousands of dead concern you less than the theoretical potential of some "dangerous radiation stuff happening".
>>You've no idea who I am or what I know
Neither am I interested.
Hmmm, let me think...
"Do fuel terminals (like this one or Buncefield) have as much scope for long term and wide area impact as a nuclear incident?"
Pray do tell, what happens when an oil terminal, on a coastline, catches fire and leaks burning oil into the sea? On an ecological scale, this is MUCH worse than the limited release of short-lived radioactive isotopes which achieve rapid dilution in a marine environment. I'd urge you to read up on the effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), present in oil, and generated by the uncontrolled burning of such, as well as the impact of sulphur compounds released into the environment (remember acid rain?)
Because I can pretty much assume you won't read up on PAHs, I'll give you a few details here; These compounds accumulate in living organisms, being fat soluble, and concentrate in the food chain, reaching toxic levels in organims at the top of the food chain, such as sea-birds, fish and marine mammals. They cause serious health effects including cancer and developmental abnormalities and persist in the environment for a LOT longer than radioactive iodine and caesium.
So in answer to your question, accidents at fuel terminals do not have the same scope and long term wide area impact as nuclear accidents, actual damage done by accidents at fuel terminals is much worse than that done by nuclear accidents. Add to that the accidents involved in the transport of raw materials to such (e.g. Torrey Canyon), some of which although happening decades ago still have a serious environmental impact, and your argument appears to hold about as much water as leaky oil tanker...
Oh RLY? Since when did objective journalism rely on just one source when espousing the same opinion?
Yes - anyone who disagrees with the mainstream media’s representation of reality is obviously a leftist; or pro-Greenpeace; or a dullard.
Fission had it's chance to replace Fossils and failed. Why? Figure it out for yourselves but here are two clues to start you off: 'money' & 'status quo'.
Do you think that the same UN that fails to prevent the illegal wars of the USA/UK et al can be relied upon for *anything* to do with maintaining our well being?
Do you think the mainstream media can be trusted to inform you of better energy producing alternatives despite the fact we sit on the cusp of major technological and power generating upheavals?
This is just the tip of the iceberg - there are plenty of other viable experiments out there being discussed by professors and engineers but I'm sure the 'docile' masses on here think these are pseudo-science lies and not worthy of investigation. Because if it ain’t on 'TheReg' or the BBC then it can't be true can it?
Ironically, part of the technology suppression effort has actually been perpetrated by the left wing eco-Nazi leaders because at their top most level their ideologies regarding the human race and population decline/control is identical to their Neo-Con/Nazi counterparts. I could quote them here all day long but what is the point when you will dismiss them as unverifiable or out of context (and also you’re too lazy to go and check they exist anyway)? Suffice to say it goes like this:
Free energy + current industrialisation levels = bad
4 Billion dead + poverty (for the majority) = good
"Bloomberg is now reporting, "Tetsuya Terasawa said the radiation levels are in line with those found after a nuclear bomb test, which disperses plutonium"
From one of your articles.
Now, I don't know about the rest, but I do know that the amount of plutonium found around Fukushima wasn't higher than elsewhere. And that only by checking what Pu isotope they found, it was clear it's Fukushima's Pu. Not Pu left after the worldwide nuclear bomb testing decades ago.
So if I can immediately spot one exaggeration/fabrication, I automatically suspect the rest of the article.
Lets be honest.
"To date no health effects have been reported in any person as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident."
That statement handily dances around the people injured during the explosions caused by the out of control plant. It also ignores the guys who had radiation burns on their legs from standing in contaminated water. I am a nuclear supporter, but lets not act like nothing happend. How much did those inspectors get paid? IAEA credibility just went south in my mind.
"four workers had been injured by the explosion"
"eleven people were injured in the blast"
"Three Japanese ground workers laboring to contain the nuclear reactors in Fukushima were rushed to the hospital with radiation burns"
Some people were injured in the reactor building explosions but several people died when the actual tsunami hit the plant and a crane operator at the other Fukushima plant (Daini) died as well. As for the three workers with radiation burns on the feet and legs, the news that they were released from hospital after four days was not as prominently reported as the original event probably because "Men perfectly OK after scary radiation incident" doesn't grab the headlines.
OTOH there is new information coming out on tests being carried out on the Fukushima first-responder workers suggests that some of them ingested or inhaled significant amounts of radioactive material during the first few days of the incident, enough to put several of them over the 250mSv annual dose limit in a few days working on the site. The small amount of information released suggests the medical authorities don't think the men's health is seriously at risk from their exposure (no cases of radiation poisoning mentioned) but it shouldn't have happened at all.
- Product round-up Coming clean: Ten cordless vacuum cleaners
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- Worstall @ the Weekend BIG FAT Lies: Porky Pies about obesity
- 'Snoopers' Charter IS DEAD', Lib Dems claim as party waves through IP address-matching