Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Dude, whatever you do, don't go easy on those superlatives. Fukushima is worse than TMI and far less bad than Chernobyl. Maybe on par with Windscale? And still, the Ukrainians, Americans and Brits are all still there. So will the Japanese. Seriously.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 01:46:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Dude, whenever someone states an opinion that begins with dude...

how about trying to make a real argument. on whose scale is Fukushima less than Chernobyl?  As the international body has already declared them equal, you might be on shaky footing, even if i don't give much credibility to the international agency myself.

And how about first discovering whether there's been any damage to the Ukrainians still there? (PS, Belorussia got it worse.) With so much statistic and science currently in dispute, and enough evidence about official lack of desire for real data, you might need to tone down your arguments... Dude.

Let's try to shelve the arrogance and technical hubris for the sake of this discussion.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 01:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The lastest numbers I saw, Fukushima was 10 % of the release of Chernobyl. Furthermore, most of it went out so sea where it is eventually diluted so much it disappears in the background radiation. There seem to be some ground contamination and hot spots in areas around the plants, but calling it the end of Japan as a country or people is just ludicrous.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 02:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can we see the last numbers you saw? If, according to you, you have better information, share it.

And yes, drop the dude stuff.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 03:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry for the snappishness guys. No insult intended. It's just that catastrophism on that scale leaves me entirely exasperated. If I truly believed in the destruction of the people and nation of Japan, I'd be going to the bank, maxing out my mortage and shorting Japanese government bonds. I hope none of you are doing that, because Japan as a nation and a people will be fine, and I wouldn't like you to lose your savings.

I'm sorry to say I can't recall exactly where I saw the data on the total radioactive emissions. It was somewhere in the mainstream media and was probably linked to here on the ET. That's the best I can do right now.

And the sea is big. It's already full of molten down submarine reactors, and no harm done that anyone can even detect. If we wanted to we could grind all the nuclear waste in the world to microscopic dust and slowly disperse it in the oceans, without even noticing any uptick in the background radioation as it over time would spread evenly. Not that I argue for such a measure, for a number of reasons, but still.

Make no mistake: the Fukushima accident is the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. But it's not the end of Japan, nor is it likely to be dangerous outside the exclusion zone (60 km, right?). Indeed, excepting unlucky hotspots and the plant site itself, the area inside the zone will be safe in not too long a time, if it not already is that. The vast majority of the emissions happened during the first few days of the accident, and most of the activity naturally comes from the elements with the shortest half-lifes, which have already decayed or are in the process of decaying. Soil contamination from radioactive iodine and strontium will be the lasting damage to hot spots and the plant sites, as they have a half-life short enough to be dangerous and long enough to hang around for considerable time spans.

This is bad, but Goodzilla aint in Tokyo.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 04:45:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I truly believed in the destruction of the people and nation of Japan, I'd be going to the bank, maxing out my mortage and shorting Japanese government bonds.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be morally questionable to profit from the death of a country and its inhabitants?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 05:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't be uneconomic.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 05:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be making the Market (tm) more Efficient (tm). Joking aside, if you are dead certain that the price of a security will move in a certain way which isn't discounted by the market, it'd be foolish not to exploit that as long you're not breaking any laws. You could always donate the profit to those 120 million Japanese refugees we supposedly should be expecting.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 05:50:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I truly believed in the destruction of the people and nation of Japan, I'd be going to the bank, maxing out my mortage and shorting Japanese government bonds.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be morally questionable to profit from the death of a country and its inhabitants?

He would not be.

He would be separating some sucker in the bond market from his money. That transaction hasn't a hill of beans to do with the situation in Japan. They might as well be two croupiers in Vegas for all anybody in the real world would care.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 05:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ps. I meant cesium and strontium, not iodine.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 05:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the area inside the zone will be safe

By "safe", do you mean below radiation level limits? The problem with this is the probabilistic nature of damage from low-level radiation, combined with large populations. If, say, the Fukushima fallout over northern Japan beyond the exclusion zone causes an excess cancer death rate of one in a thousand over an area inhabited by 10 million people, that's still 10,000 victims. This is a certain effect of uncertain magnitude, unfortunately with uncertainties in the orders of magnitudes. (This didn't keep the authors of the Russian Academy of Sciences study on Chernobyl to also estimate the dead from Chernobyl fallout across Western Europe and North America in the hundreds of thousands.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:44:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And 10,000 victims will not bring down the nation of Japan.

It is, for example, a smaller total impact than the cancer epidemic from the chemical industry, which has failed to taken down any national economies to date. Indeed, it could be fewer than the lives Japan saves relative to the US by its less intensive reliance on driving private vehicles.

The set of "bad things, but not an existential threat to the continued existence of a national economy" is one with a quite wide range.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Jun 12th, 2011 at 11:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(This is where macro-economics fails to capture the phenomena.)

Depends on who the 10,000 is ... doesn't it?  Only (about) 3% of a nation's population is Creative Class where the rubber-meets-the-future.  In some industrial areas we're talking tens of people who have the knowledge and ability to drive the R&D to successful products.  

Example:

Fukushima was the leading global center for digital camera research and development.  With these people dead, missing, or running away from radioactivity the entire digital camera industry is falling from the grasp of the Japanese.  If it get away from them, they won't get it back; they will always be behind the curve.  

Same basic process happened to Motorola and is happening to Nokia in the mobile telephony business.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Jun 12th, 2011 at 12:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And there you have in a nutshell the difference between what hit Fukushima itself and what would happen as a result of 10,000 distributed fairly randomly across 10million.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Jun 12th, 2011 at 04:18:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Since the numbers for both disasters remain in dispute, particularly Fukushima, and this one remains ongoing, a bit of caution in any assertion might be in order.

in fact, since the levels reported by TEPCO/Ministry have continued to change over time, and we also know they didn't report the melt throughout until months after they knew, how much should we trust any figures?

do we have any idea of what's happening to the water table?

but assume you're correct, and it's only 10% poisonous, is that then a safe level?

diluted in the sea? right, the oceans are a neutral absorber, particularly in sushi land.

And what if the statistics from the Pacific Northwest turn out to be viable, that infant mortality has already increased?

PS. There's nothing wrong with modern usage of Dude, just that what works in conversation doesn't work in print.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Sat Jun 11th, 2011 at 03:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The lastest numbers I saw, Fukushima was 10 % of the release of Chernobyl.

Nuclear fuel has melted through base of Fukushima plant - Telegraph

In early April, the agency said some 370,000 terabecquerels escaped from the facility. It now believes that figure was 770,000 terabecquerels.

That's now 15% (and the origial figure was more like 7%). Interestingly, another government agency got out a number closer to the current NISA figure based on the emissions:

Fukushima nuke crisis upgraded to '7'

According to the agency, the total amount of iodine-131 and cesium-137 emitted between March 11 and at 11am Tuesday reached 370,000 terabecquerels according to the reactors' estimated condition. Within this assessment, cesium levels were converted to their equivalent in iodine-131 levels.

The Cabinet office's nuclear safety commission, meanwhile, announced Tuesday that the total amount of iodine and cesium emitted between March 11 and April 5 was 630,000 terabecquerels (again, with cesium levels converted to the iodine equivalent), calculated according to the amount of radiation observed around the facility.

...In the Chernobyl crisis, about 5.2 million terabecquerels of radioactive material was emitted into the air in the space of 10 days.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jun 12th, 2011 at 10:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: