▲ 92 points
back
106 comments
The opposition into Japan is not about the exact number of cancers or deaths. It is about trust. To quote the official report [1]:
...the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.
How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great pride in its global reputation for excellence in engineering and technology? This Commission believes the Japanese people – and the global community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer to this question.
Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.
For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster. What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.”
Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.
(the rest is worth reading too)
If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems?
> If your government and industry had failed you like that would you trust them to continue with nuclear power without fixing the underlying problems?
And yet, the hottest spots seem to be healthier places to live than Denver... Is that a really big problem?
Sure, but who in his right mind would live in Denver?
The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html
that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller has been thinking about how to apply the facts of nature to the contentious issues of public policy for a long time, and has a good sense of economic and political trade-offs in policy- making. The article submitted here is a great example of clear thinking on a scary issue, and I endorse it as well worth reading and thinking about.
P.S. I have just been to Colorado Springs, Colorado, transiting the Denver, Colorado airport to get there, and I am not worried about increasing my cancer risk by returning to the Front Range each year for the business that brought me there.
I checked some of the statements made in other comments in this thread since posting this, and I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country.
P.P.S. I live in one of the states of the United States in which an exceptionally large percentage of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants. Both plants are located along the Mississippi River, as is most of Minnesota's population centers. Electricity is unusually inexpensive here, and health statistics are unusually good here, compared to other parts of the United States.
You are correct that the shuttering of the plants has been bad for everybody. Power is already more expensive and another rate increase (10% or so) is imminent. The air is dirtier. The whole place is a lot more uncomfortable (to comply with mandatory energy cuts, the Tokyo office in which I am typing this very post no longer has any climate control on weekends... I have a frozen gel-pack wrappped around my head and sweat is still running down my back).
As a resident and rational human being, I want those gigawatts back. Modern Tokyo is an especially sad place without enough power.
But I want the gigawatts without the staggering incompetence and the gross negligence and the collusion and collossal failure of oversight. I want the nuclear plants to be equipped with modern emergency procedures that don't start with faxing a fucking paper form to City Hall.
And despite all the controvery and debate, I don't hear much about fixing those things. In terms of whether to turn the juice back on, those things are the problem, more than the accident itself. And that is the point that the well-written article by Dr. Muller misses.
Yes, it is rational for a thinking person to be open to using nuclear energy, despite the inherent risks. I think it is rational if, say, we really do a decent job of trying to mitigate those risks, to have functional regulatory oversight, and make decisions in a reasonably transparent, fully informed, democratic manner.
But when you feel (as I think the public here feels) that there is just no way that part is going to happen, then it becomes less rational to support the nukes.
Personally I love nuclear power. What a fucking thing! Incredible! And, it makes the 1 MW·h or so I personally use each month cheaper and even potentially cleaner.
So in theory sure, I support nuclear energy initiatives. I think you are right, it does make sense for Japan to be open to that.
But instead in Japan (and elsewhere, probably) I think the question actually is: "Do you support nuclear energy in the absence of competent oversight, with reliance on the for-profit provider's self-inspections, with safety precautions that are insufficient to protect from predictable natural disasters, and outdated fax-machine-based emergency procedures?"
The answer to that is less easy.
Coping with summer heat is actually possible without air conditioning. I know because I live now in a country where air conditioning is virtually inexistent in spite of summer temperatures comparable to Tokyo's (although usually less humid).
Insulation is a major factor and probably a main reason why you consider air conditioning in Tokyo that important: Insulation is virtually virtually virtually, i.e. air conditioning becomes more of a necessity and waste more energy. In the winter time, on the other hand, heating in Japan is very inefficient as well. During my last stay in Japan, I was happy to see at least some new building with better insulations, that is a beginning!
Another factor are long commuting times in Tokyo, another contributing factor to energy consumption.
And there is of course always the possibility of a siesta. The Japanese have somehow a reputation for Coping with summer heat is actually possible without air conditioning. I know because I live in a country where air conditioning is virtually inexistent in spite of summer temperatures comparable to Tokyo's.
Insulation is a major factor and probably a major reason why you consider air conditioning in Tokyo that important: Insulation is virtually inexistent, i.e. air conditioning becomes more of a necessity and waste more energy. In the winter time, on the other hand, heating in Japan is very inefficient as well.
Another factor are long commuting times in Tokyo, another contributing factor to energy consumption.
And there is of course always the possibility of a siesta. The Japanese have somehow a reputation for long and busy workdays, however, most of it is inefficiently spent office time. A siesta would therefore easily be possible or just try to be more efficient and spend less time in a warm office.
Do I like to work in a warm office in the summer? No but coping with summer heat is much easier than with winter cold … I hope the Japanese will get the priorities sooner or later right, despite the lamentable state of the country (and that began not with Fukushima). and busy workdays, however, most of it is inefficiently spent office time. I often compare the Japanese with the Italians in regard to their work ethic although the Italians at least admit that they are not efficient … anyway, a siesta at least would easily be possible or just try to be more efficient and spend less time in a warm office.
Do I like to work in a warm office in the summer? No but coping with summer heat is much easier than with winter cold … I hope the Japanese will get the priorities sooner or later right, despite the lamentable state of the country (and that began not with Fukushima).
"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country."
OK, I don't know if anyone else finds this to be a strange statement, but I do.
First, no one is saying that shutting down 50 of 52 nuclear power power plants, providing 30% of Japan's electricity supply is an economic benefit. Would that even make sense?
But "bad for the country" is a very different proposition.
"Japan has shut down over 95% of the power plants which produce radioactive waste which lasts for thousands of years."
Bad for the country?
While Japan continues to need electricity (for SHORT TERM CONVENIENCE) , and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the PRODUCTION OF ENERGY WHICH RESULTS IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS).
Yeah. Right.
What IS good for the country? Short term consumption, or long-term sickness, death and mutation? What would Hoppe say, in terms of a time preference analysis?
"It is remarkable that so much attention has been given to the radioactive release from Fukushima, considering that the direct death and destruction from the tsunami was enormously greater. Perhaps the reason for the focus on the reactor meltdown is that it is a solvable problem; in contrast, there is no plausible way to protect Japan from 50-foot tsunamis."
It's amazing to be able to take such an arrogant attitude. The outrage regarding the Fukushima disaster is exactly that there would have been no fallout if not for several human errors leading up to the disaster -- and the lies and misinformation following the disaster. There is a complete and justified lack of trust in the government and the industry -- and no indication that there will be no further accidents -- whether induced by natural disasters or just poor maintenance.
So yes, over engineering does indeed work -- and is a necessary measure when dealing with potential radioactive fallout -- but even then accidents do happen. I've seen people claim that the fact that human error is behind this and other accidents "proves" that nuclear power is safe -- this is of course rubbish. Human error will always be a big risk factor in any engineering project.
The author also ignores the fact that Japan has done an unprecedented job of mitigating the damage tsunamis can do -- but that the effort had been scaled towards what was assumed to be the likely threat -- a tsunami smaller than the one associated with this earthquake. He implies that this effort was for nothing -- which isn't true. It simply wasn't effective along large parts of the coast as it should (could) have been.
Consciously allowing a potentially huge risk -- the long time destruction of farmland and populated areas by radioactive contamination -- versus not mitigating all possible natural disasters and risks of war -- is a false dichotomy.
The problem with nuclear power isn't that a lot of people might die from cancer -- it's that generations might be affected by a single accident -- and will be burdened with containing spent fuel for longer than human civilization have existed.
Finally, if it turns out that geothermal power is a viable alternative -- then it should be possible to fulfil Japan's energy need without any risk of nuclear fallout.
In addition, we as mankind know how to deal with the aftermath of a tsunami: We clean up, rebuild and so on …
After a nuclear disaster, we mostly remain helpless observers. As of today, the Japanese neither fully know what actually happened and still have no idea how to deal with the Fukushima aftermath in a long-term. The same goes for Tschernobyl and many other sites with nuclear fallout and waste. Nuclear energy is like a dragon awoken without any possibility to put him at sleep ever again.
> Looking back more than a year after the event, it is clear that the Fukushima reactor complex, though nowhere close to state-of-the-art, was adequately designed to contain radiation. New reactors can be made even safer, of course, but the bottom line is that Fukushima passed the test.
He made a good argument that new cancer cases are statistically few, but I can't see what test Fukushima passed. As far as I know there were multiple meltdowns and dumping radioactive water into the ocean. From an engineering point of view, it was a clear-cut failure. If not of implementation, then at least of specifications and margins.
I think the idea was that even if it was an engineering failure, it turned out not to be so dangerous. In a sense, it passed the tests of "What if things go wrong? What if the engineering wasn't so good? What if there's human error? What if events happen that weren't initially predicted?"
They were not designed to be able to resist an earthquake of that magnitude so I fail to see how it can be an failure from an engineering perspective (the fact that most plants handled it fine should if anything suggest that, from an engineering perspective, it was a success).
> I can't see what test Fukushima passed
They had a disaster much bigger than was planned for, multiple failures, both human and machine and even so nobody died from it. At worst, some might eventually succumb to cancer someday.
But it's radiation, so people are still more scared of it than the tsunami that killed everyone. I mean, nobody is talking about how to make sure that we're better prepared for the tsuanmis that kill thousands of people and utterly devastate so much land.
The damage that actually occurred is not that serious. The oceans are large, and eventually the authorities will pick out what's left of the fuel rods and store it safely. This is what was done at Three Mile Island.
But the reality is they only very narrowly avoided a catastrophe that would have been orders of magnitude worse, since they were only able to regain control of the site by putting people there to add water. That was mostly luck.
But it could have been much worse, say like Chernobyl, and it wasn't due to good engineering.
As an experiment, I volunteer to expose myself, my wife and my children to a yearly dose of radiation that is three times the maximum safe-level recommended by The International Commission on Radiological Protection. i.e. we happily live in the Denver area ;-)
Really? Are you serious?
BTW, there's a big difference between "background radiation" and ingested radiation (either through air, food, water, etc.)
The scientific consensus is that there is no amount of radiation that is safe to ingest.
http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/pdf/10.1667/RR2629.1
Do you really want to test your theory?
Radiation and contamination are different, you can't just compare dosage levels in different scenarios.
If you wore a mask and suit all the time living next to Fukushima, it would not change how much radiation you get because plastic suits don't block radiation. But you would be vastly more healthy because you would avoid the contamination.
Essentially if you inhale radioactive particles they stay inside you and continue to radiate, and the substances themselves are often very toxic. This is the main concern.
Lately I've been reevaluating my predictable sci/techy pro-nuclear stance. I still roll my eyes at folks who don't really know what radiation is but think it's inherently bad, and I still think nuclear power is probably a lesser evil than fossil fuels. But two things I learned this week gave me pause:
First, that Fukushima was not as benign as I believed if butterflys are mutating http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120809/srep00570/full/srep00...
Second, and maybe everyone else knew this, but I never knew that we haven't been able to produce low-background steel since 1945 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel
And maybe those are both insignificant. But I think they both serve as non-partisan evidence that we can and have semi-permanently altered the planet with each nuclear mistake we've made.
The low-background steel seems to be a factor of nuclear weapon testing rather than nuclear reactors. Even the most ardent of nuclear power supporters don't argue for detonating more nuclear weapons!
Besides, essentially everything people do at any scale has altered the planet in permanent or semi-permanent ways. It is an issue, but it is not an issue unique to nuclear power.
That first point is referenced in this story, actually. It's about half-way down.
Physicist Richard Muller should clearly demonstrate his beliefs by moving to Fukushima, instead of discussing the panic from the other side of the world. And he should also put nuclear risks in perspective, and contradict Seaborg:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....
He should leave his tenured position at a major university to demonstrate his conviction? That's not a meaningful point or challenge.
Are you seriously trying to argue with a physics professor using an Adam Curtis documentary? Get outta here....
Handy radiation dose effect chart provided by Randall of XKCD (note: 1 microsievert = 0.0001 rem)
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/
Perhaps an interesting meta-discussion is the phenomenon of how choice of units affects the framing of a discussion. 0.1 rem doesn't sound nearly as dangerous as 1,000 μSv, though of course both numbers are completely meaningless to most lay people.
TEPCO measured radiation levels of 10 Sv in the basement of Reactor 1 in June this year [1].
In March TEPCO measured radiation levels of 73 Sv/h in the container vessel [2]. A Fukushima worker tweeted a radiation level estimation of > 1000 Sv for another part of the reactor (the endoscope used for radiation testing is only rated to 1000 Sv, so cannot be used) [3].
The radiation level next to Chernobyl immediately after the meltdown was 300 Sv/h.
Also in March, Arnie Gundersen of FaireWinds went to Tokyo to collect soil samples from parks and streets, and on testing the samples back in the US concluded they would be considered radioactive waste in the United States. [4]
The XKCD cartoon was produced during the perceived hysteria following the aftermath and reporting of the Fukushima radiation and fallout, but the history since then appears to indicate that the extreme concern over Fukushima radiation is depressingly justified.
[1] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120629a7.html
[2] http://fukushima-diary.com/2012/03/73svh-in-container-vessel...
[3] https://twitter.com/Happy11311/status/184586152186097664
[4] http://fairewinds.org/content/tokyo-soil-samples-would-be-co...
I don't know of any authoritative resources on radiation->cancer risk, can anyone provide more information? The article starts out with a cool premise but I have a hard time swallowing the linear rem->%chance relationship described here
"If 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer, then a dose of 2,500 rem (25 rem times 100) implies that you will get cancer (a 100% chance)"
Unfortunately, we don't have the data. Yep, it's non linear, but all of our data is basically on two ends of the spectrum. Low amounts of radiation on one end, accumulated from natural sources or working at nuclear plants, and high amounts of radiation on the other, accumulated from survivors of Hiroshima, Cherynobyl, and some nuclear accidents.
So, given those data points, with clusters on two ends of this spectrum you're stuck with interpolation. Ideally, we'd like a good, predictive, biological based model that explicitly showed how you go from biological damage to cancer or death. We don't have that (though there are people researching it), so we go with statistical techniques. This results in basically 3 different proposed models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
The Linear No Threshold Model:
Draw a line between the two regions. Bam! Done.
This is clearly wrong for very large doses, but is used mostly to try and estimate the effect of a small change in radiation exposure to predict increase in cancer incidence. This is very important for public policy. Of course, this makes all these models politically contested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_model
Threshold Model
This model predicts that small amounts of radiation has zero effect on cancer incidence. According to this model, going to higher altitude, or taking a plane flight, won't increase your risk of cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
Radiation Hormesis
A little radiation is good for you! The biological argument is that your body gets used to dealing with damage from radiation. Don't tax it too hard and you'll be stronger. So take a plane trip, and enjoy the X-ray scans!
The LNT model is clearly wrong, but people like numbers even if they're wrong, which is why you see it used in planning and media reports. There are probably fewer cancer cases than LNT would predict, but beyond that we simply don't know.
Wikipedia is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man
It's not authoritative, but if you really want to dig in to the issue the references at the end of the article are a good place to start.
That's about where the author lost me. Up to that point, he seemed to be pulling numbers from research, but then he makes a transition to pulling numbers and formulas out of his ass. For example, I'm not convinced that "if spread out over 1,000 people, so that everyone received 2.5 rem on average" is a valid deduction.
He then goes on to explain how "to know how many excess cancers there will be." I listened to an interview with a radiation expert [1] a couple weeks ago, and he made it very clear that we don't know how to make those calculations that the author of this article is claiming to know how to make. If I were to try to regurgitate the points from the interview, I'd risk spreading a misunderstanding of the issues. So instead, if you're interested in what the experts think on this subject, you can refer to the original source [1].
[1] http://www.pointofinquiry.org/nuclear_risk_and_reason_david_...
To the author of this article: I will believe you if you agree to move to Fukushima and live there for the rest of your life.
Yeah, losing your present lifestyle and job to go live in one of the most xenophobic country of the earth, and one that doesn't have a lot of skilled English speakers at that, just to make a point, sounds like a good plan, right. You really have to be one of those "wapanese", people from the west who are obsessed with japan, to be insane enough to do such a thing through your own will. You don't have a choice if you're employed at a company that does business in Japan and you have to move there for a year or two. But someone who does it with nothing compelling him to ? Madness. Japan is the last country I'd want to live in, among the developed, industrial countries of the world.
People talk about racism in Europe and America. Well, of course racism is still alive and kickin', but they don't know what racism is until they take a look at Japan. In the west we're at the point where we're taking in lots of immigrants from diverse background, be it educated or uneducated, from various countries and cultures in the world. That isn't the case in Japan. It's already kinda exceptional for an European to live in Japan.
It is ridiculous to expect anyone to go live in Fukushima just to make a point. Hell, it might be technically impossible. For a white foreigner to work in Japan, you have to take an upper class job, that is, something in engineering, education, entertainment.. or else you'll never get any work visa. But the thing is, there probably ain't a lot of those jobs in the evacuated area of Fukushima. So what you are asking him to do might even be impossible. There might be a way if that person is willing to travel long distances from home to the workplace.. who'd do that kind of stupid effort anyway just because some bloke on the internet asked him so ?
As for me, I live in Denver with my family which according to the exposure map, is about the same as living within 25 miles of Fukushima
Maybe I was being ridiculously optimistic, but ~200 projected additional cases of cancer seems pretty bad.
You really have to put things in context, otherwise you get into the "think of the children" fallacy, where everything is worth the effort if it saves one life.
We die of three causes: cancer, heart problems and strokes. Well over 30% die of cancer. So this means some of those 200 will die of cancer before they die of something else (some of them will recover and live to die from heart attack later). This makes the new deaths a really tiny percentage, which means policy-wise it's hardly worth discussing.
It is pretty bad, but people have seriously argued that the evacuation itself killed more people: Japan (like any other highly populated First World country!) is stuffed full of old or sick people, and when you force them to evacuate quickly and be separated from all their stuff, their doctors and medical records, their local pharmacies, and subject them to a ton of stress in every respect - well, quite a few people are going to kick the bucket.
Over 15K people were killed in the quake and tsunami. On the scale of "badness", ~200 projected cases is not a scale tipper. Not to trivialize the additional projected cancer risks, just to put it in perspective.
Every energy source kills people, even solar and wind kill people. This guy did a collection of statistics (I think they are each by a different body so they're not directly comparable but should still suffice for orders-of-magnitude.) http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
With 2 reactors online and several thermal plants taken offline Japan is more than meeting it's current demand even though an exceptionally hot summer.
(Yes, I've been keeping an eye on the demand & availability numbers. Not just making stuff up in advance like others here.)
In fact if you took the 2 reactors offline they would still meet demand.
Now as the renewable energy industry actually gets a chance, rather than being squashed by the nuclear industry stranglehold on government the reactors are becoming clearly unnecessary long term.
Statements like many of the blog posts here are frankly ridiculous propaganda.
Infertility and High Natural Background Radiation ...
"Conclusion: Findings of this study indicate that women's Primary infertility rate in the HBR residents was considerably less than in the area with ordinary background radiation."
http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/medwelljournals/rjbsci/2008/534-53...
"Y. Tabarraie , S. Refahi , M.H. Dehghan and M. Mashoufi , 2008. Impact of High Natural Background Radiation on Woman`s Primary Infertility. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 3: 534-536."
Random question: Could the altitude of Denver contribute to its lower incidence rate of cancer? Your body does have to work a bit harder to live higher up. Just curious.
The conclusion of the WSJ was: "The great tragedy of the Fukushima accident is that Japan shut down all its nuclear reactors. Even though officials have now turned two back on, the hardships and economic disruptions induced by this policy will be enormous and will dwarf any danger from the reactors themselves."
The conclusion of The Corbett Report was: "Along with the tragic loss of life, the destruction of homes, farms, businesses and property, and the beginning of the Fukushima nuclear crisis, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami exposed the biggest secret of all: that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in Japan is just that. A myth."
http://www.corbettreport.com/mp3/episode237_fukushimas_bigge...
I question that conclusion. The power shortages have been quite troubling.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/03/12030...
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201207...
"that the myth of the necessity of nuclear power in Japan is just that. A myth"
This is just wrong. Japan is importing natural gas at prices x2-x5 higher than before. Causing Japans Trade balance (positive for nearly 30 years) to swing negative which is going to cause un-known and negative consequences for economy if this continues.
Energy both in availability and price is the economic engine that drives developed nations... we just replaced our Toyota to a expensive but nice BMW - somethings going to give.