Fukushima -- as usual it was an overreaction

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html?_r=0

Even if the linear hypothesis is true the evacuation seems to have killed at least 10x as many as the radiation would have if they stayed put.

 

[atrib]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html?_r=0

Even if the linear hypothesis is true the evacuation seems to have killed at least 10x as many as the radiation would have if they stayed put.

Unless there had been a catastrophic collapse of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive material into the wild. Hindsight is usually 20/20, and the government did what they had to in the face of a threat that could not be predicted or controlled.

 

[bilby]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html?_r=0

Even if the linear hypothesis is true the evacuation seems to have killed at least 10x as many as the radiation would have if they stayed put.

Unless there had been a catastrophic collapse of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive material into the wild. Hindsight is usually 20/20, and the government did what they had to in the face of a threat that could not be predicted or controlled.

Or if Godzilla had emerged from the sea and started eating people. That would have been bad, too.

The government overreacted in the face of a predictable threat that had them too scared to pay any attention to the predictions.

There was a natural disaster. There was no nuclear disaster; just a nuclear incident that resulted from the natural disaster, combined with the intransigence of the environmental movement who had prevented the replacement of the Da-Ichi reactors with more modern types, and the overreaction of officials who are terrified by the N-word, largely as a result of the efforts of that same environmental movement.

Total death toll from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Serious injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Minor injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - two. In the context of a Magnitude 9 earthquake and the resulting tsunami, that is an exemplary result, that other industrial sites on that coastline would envy.

 

[fromderinside]

Unless there had been a catastrophic collapse of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive material into the wild. Hindsight is usually 20/20, and the government did what they had to in the face of a threat that could not be predicted or controlled.

Or if Godzilla had emerged from the sea and started eating people. That would have been bad, too.

The government overreacted in the face of a predictable threat that had them too scared to pay any attention to the predictions.

There was a natural disaster. There was no nuclear disaster; just a nuclear incident that resulted from the natural disaster, combined with the intransigence of the environmental movement who had prevented the replacement of the Da-Ichi reactors with more modern types, and the overreaction of officials who are terrified by the N-word, largely as a result of the efforts of that same environmental movement.

Total death toll from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Serious injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Minor injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - two. In the context of a Magnitude 9 earthquake and the resulting tsunami, that is an exemplary result, that other industrial sites on that coastline would envy.

This is the kind of information that makes me feel better. Fukushima radionuclides in the NW Pacific, and assessment of doses for Japanese and world population from ingestion of seafood http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09016?WT.ec_id=SREP-704-20150317

The individual effective dose commitment from consumption of radioactive-contaminated fish caught in the open Pacific Ocean was estimated to be 0.07 ± 0.05 mSv/y. These doses are comparable or much lower than doses delivered from the consumption of natural 210Po in fish and in shellfish (0.7 mSv/y). The estimated individual doses have been below the levels when any health damage of the Japanese and world population could be expected.

 

[Juma]

"The open pacific ocean"???
That is a very large population...
The interesting number us: what is the individual effective dose near fukushima? Near japan?

 

[bilby]

"The open pacific ocean"???
That is a very large population...
The interesting number us: what is the individual effective dose near fukushima? Near japan?

Here you go:

Abstract

The Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, resulted in unprecedented radioactivity releases from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants to the Northwest Pacific Ocean. Results are presented here from an international study of radionuclide contaminants in surface and subsurface waters, as well as in zooplankton and fish, off Japan in June 2011. A major finding is detection of Fukushima-derived ¹³⁴Cs and ¹³⁷Cs throughout waters 30–600 km offshore, with the highest activities associated with near-shore eddies and the Kuroshio Current acting as a southern boundary for transport. Fukushima-derived Cs isotopes were also detected in zooplankton and mesopelagic fish, and unique to this study we also find ^110mAg in zooplankton. Vertical profiles are used to calculate a total inventory of ∼2 PBq ¹³⁷Cs in an ocean area of 150,000 km2. Our results can only be understood in the context of our drifter data and an oceanographic model that shows rapid advection of contaminants further out in the Pacific. Importantly, our data are consistent with higher estimates of the magnitude of Fukushima fallout and direct releases [Stohl et al. (2011) Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 11:28319–28394; Bailly du Bois et al. (2011) J Environ Radioact, 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2011.11.015]. We address risks to public health and marine biota by showing that though Cs isotopes are elevated 10–1,000× over prior levels in waters off Japan, radiation risks due to these radionuclides are below those generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers, and even below those from naturally occurring radionuclides

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5984.short - (my bold)

So the contamination, despite being at levels consistent with high end estimates, was nevertheless below harmful levels - and even below naturally occurring levels - within three months of the event.

It is, literally, a drop in the ocean.

 

[Juma]

My english is not perfect... What does "waters off japan" mean? Waters near or far from japan?

 

[bilby]

My english is not perfect... What does "waters off japan" mean? Waters near or far from japan?

Waters 'off' a country are the bits of the ocean closest to that country.

 

[Juma]

My english is not perfect... What does "waters off japan" mean? Waters near or far from japan?

Waters 'off' a country are the bits of the ocean closest to that country.

Ok. Thanks.
The problem with radiation is that it is invisible and thus frightening. That radiation is easily measured should be reassuring but the increasing ticks from a geiger-müller tube is one of the most ikonic sounds of danger there is...

 

[bilby]

Waters 'off' a country are the bits of the ocean closest to that country.

Ok. Thanks.
The problem with radiation is that it is invisible and thus frightening. That radiation is easily measured should be reassuring but the increasing ticks from a geiger-müller tube is one of the most ikonic sounds of danger there is...

Yes. It's a shame - it is hard to think of a phenomenon better suited to scaremongering and needless fear.

 

[atrib]

Unless there had been a catastrophic collapse of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive material into the wild. Hindsight is usually 20/20, and the government did what they had to in the face of a threat that could not be predicted or controlled.

Or if Godzilla had emerged from the sea and started eating people. That would have been bad, too.

The government overreacted in the face of a predictable threat that had them too scared to pay any attention to the predictions.

Are you claiming that the government knew that there would not be a catastrophic failure of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive contaminants in the hours and days following the tsunami? Especially given that the structures had just been subjected to a Magnitude 9.0 earthquake in close proximity to the Daichi and Daini plants which had been designed in the 60's and 70's to much smaller PGA values ranging from about 20 to 50% of gravity.

There was a natural disaster. There was no nuclear disaster; just a nuclear incident that resulted from the natural disaster, combined with the intransigence of the environmental movement who had prevented the replacement of the Da-Ichi reactors with more modern types, and the overreaction of officials who are terrified by the N-word, largely as a result of the efforts of that same environmental movement.

A natural disaster that had crippled the power generators that are critical to a safe shutdown of the core, and had very likely caused a partial meltdown of the base of the containment structure of some of the reactors, and likely some exposure at the top also. We have very limited experience with how old reactors behave when the cores cannot be properly cooled, but based on the limited experience we have with sites like Chernobyl, what would have been the effect of a catastrophic structural failure of the containment structure? Can this be predicted with any degree of certainty?

Total death toll from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Serious injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Minor injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - two. In the context of a Magnitude 9 earthquake and the resulting tsunami, that is an exemplary result, that other industrial sites on that coastline would envy.

Hindsight is usually 20/20. What decision would you have made if the lives of tens of thousands of people depended on that decision and you had limited information to work with?

 

[Juma]

Or if Godzilla had emerged from the sea and started eating people. That would have been bad, too.

The government overreacted in the face of a predictable threat that had them too scared to pay any attention to the predictions.

Are you claiming that the government knew that there would not be a catastrophic failure of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive contaminants in the hours and days following the tsunami? Especially given that the structures had just been subjected to a Magnitude 9.0 earthquake in close proximity to the Daichi and Daini plants which had been designed in the 60's and 70's to much smaller PGA values ranging from about 20 to 50% of gravity.

There was a natural disaster. There was no nuclear disaster; just a nuclear incident that resulted from the natural disaster, combined with the intransigence of the environmental movement who had prevented the replacement of the Da-Ichi reactors with more modern types, and the overreaction of officials who are terrified by the N-word, largely as a result of the efforts of that same environmental movement.

A natural disaster that had crippled the power generators that are critical to a safe shutdown of the core, and had very likely caused a partial meltdown of the base of the containment structure of some of the reactors, and likely some exposure at the top also. We have very limited experience with how old reactors behave when the cores cannot be properly cooled, but based on the limited experience we have with sites like Chernobyl, what would have been the effect of a catastrophic structural failure of the containment structure? Can this be predicted with any degree of certainty?

Total death toll from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Serious injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Minor injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - two. In the context of a Magnitude 9 earthquake and the resulting tsunami, that is an exemplary result, that other industrial sites on that coastline would envy.

Hindsight is usually 20/20. What decision would you have made if the lives of tens of thousands of people depended on that decision and you had limited information to work with?

Interesting that you mention chernobyl. Since that EXTREME DISASTER killed less than 50.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Ok. Thanks.
The problem with radiation is that it is invisible and thus frightening. That radiation is easily measured should be reassuring but the increasing ticks from a geiger-müller tube is one of the most ikonic sounds of danger there is...

Yes. It's a shame - it is hard to think of a phenomenon better suited to scaremongering and needless fear.

This^.

It could be such a fantastic bridge-source of energy but too many people are unnecessarily frightened of it.

I'm just old enough to remember the disaster at Three Mile Island in which there were no deaths and no injuries. And no meltdown. And no exposure.

What if it would have been a coal mine at Fukushima full of miners? And speaking of mining, how many tens of thousands have been lost in that dirty fucking field over the centuries? Tens of thousands I guess.

Oh well, we could stop a lot of pollution really quickly if we went nuclear. But we won't. And whatever.

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you claiming that the government knew that there would not be a catastrophic failure of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive contaminants in the hours and days following the tsunami? Especially given that the structures had just been subjected to a Magnitude 9.0 earthquake in close proximity to the Daichi and Daini plants which had been designed in the 60's and 70's to much smaller PGA values ranging from about 20 to 50% of gravity.

There was a natural disaster. There was no nuclear disaster; just a nuclear incident that resulted from the natural disaster, combined with the intransigence of the environmental movement who had prevented the replacement of the Da-Ichi reactors with more modern types, and the overreaction of officials who are terrified by the N-word, largely as a result of the efforts of that same environmental movement.

A natural disaster that had crippled the power generators that are critical to a safe shutdown of the core, and had very likely caused a partial meltdown of the base of the containment structure of some of the reactors, and likely some exposure at the top also. We have very limited experience with how old reactors behave when the cores cannot be properly cooled, but based on the limited experience we have with sites like Chernobyl, what would have been the effect of a catastrophic structural failure of the containment structure? Can this be predicted with any degree of certainty?

Total death toll from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Serious injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Minor injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - two. In the context of a Magnitude 9 earthquake and the resulting tsunami, that is an exemplary result, that other industrial sites on that coastline would envy.

Hindsight is usually 20/20. What decision would you have made if the lives of tens of thousands of people depended on that decision and you had limited information to work with?

Interesting that you mention chernobyl. Since that EXTREME DISASTER killed less than 50.

I always find it amazing the fear level people have of nuclear power. They will point to Chernobyl (a nuclear incident thirty years ago) as an example of how dangerous it is and yet have no qualms at all about driving a car when last year there were more than 30,000 killed and over 2,000,000 injured in traffic accidents in the US.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you claiming that

All it looks to me that he's saying is that there are experts and there are fear mongers and the government paid too much attention to the fear mongers.
Which makes sense, of course. You have to listen to the fear mongers.
When the expert says 'there's no need to panic,' he's only putting his career and reputation on the line. can't trust them.

The people shouting that this is the perfect time to panic are at no such risk, they're simply furthering their agenda no matter how things turn out. If something bad happens, they were right, if nothing bad happens, they can still claim it could have happened, setting themselves up nicely for the next TIME TO PANIC! event. If you start questioning their expertise, they can point to Three Mile Chernobyl or such.

 

[SimpleDon]

I guess that I understand the visceral fear attached to nuclear power. To people who don't understand the science and the technology behind it nuclear power only brings up imagines of mushroom clouds, radiation burns, giant mutant lizards, and cancer.

What we know for certain is two things. One, our current nuclear power technology is the safest, most efficient, and least polluting power generation technology that we have ever devised. And two, our current nuclear power technology is obsolete and can be made orders of magnitude safer, more efficient and less polluting than it is.

The fear surrounding nuclear power has prevented the development of these more modern nuclear technologies. And it has prevented the replacement of our current stock of aging reactors making accidents like Fukushima more likely.

And it is not just fear that is preventing these things. There is a large, entrenched and powerful lobby of companies that have a huge financial interest in maintaining our current obsolete technologies. This is another example of the misapplication of capitalism and its profit motive.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unless there had been a catastrophic collapse of the containment structure and widespread dispersal of radioactive material into the wild. Hindsight is usually 20/20, and the government did what they had to in the face of a threat that could not be predicted or controlled.

Or if Godzilla had emerged from the sea and started eating people. That would have been bad, too.

The government overreacted in the face of a predictable threat that had them too scared to pay any attention to the predictions.

And if they couldn't keep the temperatures down? If there was a following quake? If there was a number of possible other things that could have occurred to make the conditions worse?

Or if there was miscommunication about the situation and there was a panic?

There was a natural disaster. There was no nuclear disaster;

We need to really ponder what the word disaster means. The plant is toast. They still can't even send equipment in to find the material.

Total death toll from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Serious injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - Nil. Minor injuries from exposure to the hazardous materials on site - two. In the context of a Magnitude 9 earthquake and the resulting tsunami, that is an exemplary result, that other industrial sites on that coastline would envy.

The clean up which can't occur for how long, will cost what, billions? It isn't armageddon, but it sure the heck is above the blip called an incident. Three Mile Island is still in operation!

 

[Turambar]

And if they couldn't keep the temperatures down? If there was a following quake? If there was a number of possible other things that could have occurred to make the conditions worse?

Or if there was miscommunication about the situation and there was a panic?

Well Jimmy, if we are going to start playing with statistics, why don't you throw in a typhoon, a tornado and just in case a meteorite to the possibilities? With all due respect, I believe your fear and that of many other people's have been created by the media, not in some sort of behind the scene conspiracy as some people here claim, but simply thanks to the news channels always looking for the next scary thing to report on or the Hollywood flicks depicting all the evils of radiation ( the perfect horror plot for 6 decades and counting!) or the numerous sic-fi books and comics out there where scary radiation plays a mayor role... I believe that most people on this forum are rational persons, you would laugh at someone trying to scare you with ghost stories, but radiation, radiation is real, science tells us so. It is also invisible, unstoppable and dangerous. Face it: These are the radiation facts most people know. I advice you check this graph, which was made at the time of the Fukushima accident.

The clean up which can't occur for how long, will cost what, billions? It isn't armageddon, but it sure the heck is above the blip called an incident. Three Mile Island is still in operation!

So what is going to happen if they can't clean for years or even decades? Most likely Japan will get a new natural reserve teeming with life, just like Chernobyl has become. Sure the few square kms surrounding the nuclear plant should remain closed off for safety reasons (And by safety reasons I mean saving dumb teenagers and wannabe explorers from a likely cancer, and certainly not encountering zombies or mutants)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well Jimmy, if we are going to start playing with statistics, why don't you throw in a typhoon, a tornado and just in case a meteorite to the possibilities?

Don't get cute with me. I raised possible issues that were each well above the level of ridiculous to happen. Quakes happen after quakes all the time. It is possible that they couldn't remediate the temperature of the rods. These are two well above the bar possibilities that could have happened.

With all due respect, I believe your fear and many other people's have been created by the media, not in some sort of behind the scene conspiracy as some people here claim, but simply thanks to the news channels always looking for the next scary thing to report on or the Hollywood flicks depicting all the evils of radiation ( the perfect horror plot for 6 decades and counting!) or the numerous sic-fi books and comics out there where scary radiation plays a mayor role...

What fear? I'm talking about risk and what level of acceptable risk there are. There was a notable nuclear issue. It's stability was not a certain thing. A couple of natural events could have occurred to make things worse. Then there is always the social component.

The clean up which can't occur for how long, will cost what, billions? It isn't armageddon, but it sure the heck is above the blip called an incident. Three Mile Island is still in operation!

So what is going to happen if they can't clean for years or even decades?

My statement was clear, this was more than a blip.

 

[Juma]

Don't get cute with me. I raised possible issues that were each well above the level of ridiculous to happen. Quakes happen after quakes all the time. It is possible that they couldn't remediate the temperature of the rods. These are two well above the bar possibilities that could have happened.

With all due respect, I believe your fear and many other people's have been created by the media, not in some sort of behind the scene conspiracy as some people here claim, but simply thanks to the news channels always looking for the next scary thing to report on or the Hollywood flicks depicting all the evils of radiation ( the perfect horror plot for 6 decades and counting!) or the numerous sic-fi books and comics out there where scary radiation plays a mayor role...

What fear? I'm talking about risk and what level of acceptable risk there are. There was a notable nuclear issue. It's stability was not a certain thing. A couple of natural events could have occurred to make things worse. Then there is always the social component.

The clean up which can't occur for how long, will cost what, billions? It isn't armageddon, but it sure the heck is above the blip called an incident. Three Mile Island is still in operation!

So what is going to happen if they can't clean for years or even decades?

My statement was clear, this was more than a blip.

Of course this event cannot be ignored. But the end result is: they could have save 1600 lives by not evacuating the hospitals.