Yesterday Prime Minister Noda visited reactor 4 up at Fukushima Daiichi. Amongst other things, he was seen inspecting the spent fuel pool, yes the one that will supposedly kill everyone when it collapses. The PM was wearing a protective suit, probably a good idea as a precaution, though it might have been more useful were we granted updated reports of actual radiation levels at the plant.
During the day Noda also visited an elementary school in Naraha, a town in Fukushima prefecture within the 20km radius of the plant that is currently undergoing 'decontamination'. There the Prime Minister gave a speech stressing that decontamination efforts must continue in order to 'revive' Japan. According to information released to the media, Naraha is in the 'first zone', which is receiving 'less than 20' millisieverts of radiation a year. Those watching were treated to pictures of workers wearing ludicrous protective masks clearing rooftops of leaves and other rubbish...
It is worth pointing out that moving to Naraha today and living there for a year, you would receive rather less than 20 millisieverts of radiation, because radioactive isotypes have been decaying steadily since the accident, when these radiation estimates were made, and will continue to decay. To my knowledge, radiation levels on the day the measurements were taken were simply extrapolated for an entire year, leading to a yearly measurement that wildly overestimates the actual radiation level. This kind of thing is regularly done when radiation is concerned just in order to be conservative, to be 'on the safe side'. I wouldn't suggest that it is not advisable to have a margin of error, but it is a good idea to keep overestimation in mind when these issues are discussed. In this context, it is a shame that current radiation levels in Naraha town weren't made available on the same broadcast as the Noda speech; that might have been interesting. My guess is that they would be very close to background level in the rest of Japan.
Even if the radiation level in Naraha is accepted as 20 mSv/yr, this is one-fifth of the dose estimated by a plethora of respected international bodies to be the minimum that could possibly expose a human to possible health risks. And we are talking about highly conservative ultra-safe judgements made with the goal a having a wide 'safety margin'. For example, UNSCEAR's conclusions are made reflecting the background of the most rigorous scientific studies on the planet, capable of detecting the elevated cancer risk of a minute fraction of a per cent that results from being exposed to radiation of more than 100 mSv/year, and then only if the most pessimistic of unproven theories of radiation is accepted.
20 mSv/yr is also about one twentieth! of the radiation that residents of Ramsar, Iran receive as natural background radiation every year, without any known deleterious effects. It is no higher than the natural background in many other parts of the world, and comparable to many many others including Denver, Colarado. It is the equivalent of a single chest scan, and much much less than a full-body CT scan; yet medical scans deliver this radiation over a single dose, not spread out over an entire year. Yet nobody seems to be complaining about chest scans, or demonstrating outside hospitals waving pictures of deformed fetuses.
When I think of some of the likely things those workers have done in their lives that have measurably increased their actual risk of cancer before they started cleaning rooftops in Fukushima prefecture I feel a certain amount of righteous anger. Have they ever lived in a major city with smog? Do they eat fried chicken? Drink too much? Go out in the sun? God forbid, did one of them whack a cigarette in his mouth a minute after taking off his mask?
I'm thinking here that if Noda really wants to 'revive' Japan, he might be better off trying to 'revive' a sense of perspective and start dealing with problems that really exist.
Monday, 8 October 2012
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Nuclear Power: Why the hell not?
This blog has very nearly become totally dedicated to the support of nuclear power in Japan and throughout the world. My conversion from skeptic to nuclear supporter has been accompanied by a slow shift of perception in other areas of opinion; this is because once atomic energy is accepted as the basis for the production of the bulk of world energy supplies, many other seemingly intractable problems crystallise into non-issues.
Naturally, energy production becomes vastly more sustainable and reliable. There are no more concerns about peak oil. And oil itself becomes vastly less valuable- its main remaining use being for the production of gasoline. That would remain a problem, but long-term it is possible to imagine all vehicles being electrical vehicles.
When you consider the fact that tension and war in the Middle East is due, at least in part, to desire for oil on the part of the West, it is not completely naive to believe that, if that desire were to subside, the stresses that have led too many times to war in the region will also subside. For example, America would have had no need to invade Iraq if they hadn't neede to guarantee oil supplies from the region. A dependence upon oil keeps many economies vulnerable to political crises in one of the most unstable parts of the world- and Japan is one of those economies. And if you believe for an instant that the American invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with 'weapons of mass destruction', I invite you to consider the case of North Korea, which to this day is still working on atomic weapons but, luckily for them, has no oil.
Around the world carbon-trading schemes are costing huge sums of money, often with the net outcome of no reduction of carbon emission at all, as the 'right to pollute' is merely traded. All that results is the supression of economic activity. In Australia the issue of carbon-pricing has brought down a prime minister, an opposition leader and very nearly a government. The newly-introduced emissions trading scheme remains hightly unpopular and has substantially raised electricity prices around the country. And the scheme, which is designed to make non-carbon-emitting energy production competitive, is in its very conception ludicrous, as the most efficient production of emission-free energy, nuclear power, is illegal in Australia. If there were nuclear power in Australia, there would be no purpose in having such a scheme, as nuclear power is practically emission-free.
Pollution around the world, from coal ash, gasoline exhaust and many other pollutants would be vastly reduced in a nuclear world, saving about 2 million lives a year. Global warming would be massively mitigated, and the attention of world governments could be more readily directed to other pressing concerns, such as poverty and hunger. Which, by the way, are much more easily alleviated with a source of clean, reliable and conflict-free power.
I am not suggestion that nuclear power can single-handedly solve the world's problems. But it is galling to me when something extraordinarily useful and productive is being ignored, or worse, treated as it were a problem. It doesn't have to be this way. A better world is possible.
Naturally, energy production becomes vastly more sustainable and reliable. There are no more concerns about peak oil. And oil itself becomes vastly less valuable- its main remaining use being for the production of gasoline. That would remain a problem, but long-term it is possible to imagine all vehicles being electrical vehicles.
When you consider the fact that tension and war in the Middle East is due, at least in part, to desire for oil on the part of the West, it is not completely naive to believe that, if that desire were to subside, the stresses that have led too many times to war in the region will also subside. For example, America would have had no need to invade Iraq if they hadn't neede to guarantee oil supplies from the region. A dependence upon oil keeps many economies vulnerable to political crises in one of the most unstable parts of the world- and Japan is one of those economies. And if you believe for an instant that the American invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with 'weapons of mass destruction', I invite you to consider the case of North Korea, which to this day is still working on atomic weapons but, luckily for them, has no oil.
Around the world carbon-trading schemes are costing huge sums of money, often with the net outcome of no reduction of carbon emission at all, as the 'right to pollute' is merely traded. All that results is the supression of economic activity. In Australia the issue of carbon-pricing has brought down a prime minister, an opposition leader and very nearly a government. The newly-introduced emissions trading scheme remains hightly unpopular and has substantially raised electricity prices around the country. And the scheme, which is designed to make non-carbon-emitting energy production competitive, is in its very conception ludicrous, as the most efficient production of emission-free energy, nuclear power, is illegal in Australia. If there were nuclear power in Australia, there would be no purpose in having such a scheme, as nuclear power is practically emission-free.
Pollution around the world, from coal ash, gasoline exhaust and many other pollutants would be vastly reduced in a nuclear world, saving about 2 million lives a year. Global warming would be massively mitigated, and the attention of world governments could be more readily directed to other pressing concerns, such as poverty and hunger. Which, by the way, are much more easily alleviated with a source of clean, reliable and conflict-free power.
I am not suggestion that nuclear power can single-handedly solve the world's problems. But it is galling to me when something extraordinarily useful and productive is being ignored, or worse, treated as it were a problem. It doesn't have to be this way. A better world is possible.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Great news!
Unless of course you are interested in say, protecting the environment, saving money, or preventing the wastage of hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Japanese government estimated today that if it is to completely phase out the use of nuclear power by 2030, it will have to invest 50 trillion yen (about $638 billion) in alternative energy infrastructure. In addition, the cost of electricity for the average household will double from 16,900 yen to 32,243 yen per month.
A few more grandmothers will have to make some more deposits in their post office bank accounts to collect that kind of money, I think.
Does it really have to be noted that Japan does not have enough money to pass budgets as it is? Is it possible to imagine the economic chaos that would ensure if the government actually decides to pursue this ludicrous course?
Hopefully I will not be stupid enough to still be in the country if it does.
The Japanese government estimated today that if it is to completely phase out the use of nuclear power by 2030, it will have to invest 50 trillion yen (about $638 billion) in alternative energy infrastructure. In addition, the cost of electricity for the average household will double from 16,900 yen to 32,243 yen per month.
A few more grandmothers will have to make some more deposits in their post office bank accounts to collect that kind of money, I think.
Does it really have to be noted that Japan does not have enough money to pass budgets as it is? Is it possible to imagine the economic chaos that would ensure if the government actually decides to pursue this ludicrous course?
Hopefully I will not be stupid enough to still be in the country if it does.
Friday, 31 August 2012
Heard about the Venezuelean oil refinery disaster?
Thought you might not have. Last Saturday an oil refinery in Venenzuela exploded, resulting in the deaths of 41 people and injuring at least 80. Here's a link
Worldwide media coverage was ... well, let's just say that the media was less than saturated. Headlines were not made around the world. People have not boycotted food from Venezuela, large parts of the country have not been declared 'uninhabitable'. Nor have self-proclaimed 'experts' appeared on TV in America and Europe to dramatise the danger and suggest that people in far countries are at risk.
All this despite the fact that the disaster (an actual, genuine disaster) released massive amounts of toxic waste and dangerous fumes into the atmosphere.
If the accident had been nuclear...well, who can imagine the public reaction when a nuclear incident that killed or injured noone in Fukushima last year has generated such horror, such fear, such terror?
The demands placed on the Fukushima accident to be 'safe' are extraordinary and it has passed them all with flying colours. It's impossible to cause fewer casualties than zero. Fukushima will not be any safer until radiation starts raising people from the dead.
How do people continue to ignore this hypocrisy?
Here's the response from the oil industry regarding the Venezuelan explosion. It's good for a laugh.
Worldwide media coverage was ... well, let's just say that the media was less than saturated. Headlines were not made around the world. People have not boycotted food from Venezuela, large parts of the country have not been declared 'uninhabitable'. Nor have self-proclaimed 'experts' appeared on TV in America and Europe to dramatise the danger and suggest that people in far countries are at risk.
All this despite the fact that the disaster (an actual, genuine disaster) released massive amounts of toxic waste and dangerous fumes into the atmosphere.
If the accident had been nuclear...well, who can imagine the public reaction when a nuclear incident that killed or injured noone in Fukushima last year has generated such horror, such fear, such terror?
The demands placed on the Fukushima accident to be 'safe' are extraordinary and it has passed them all with flying colours. It's impossible to cause fewer casualties than zero. Fukushima will not be any safer until radiation starts raising people from the dead.
How do people continue to ignore this hypocrisy?
Here's the response from the oil industry regarding the Venezuelan explosion. It's good for a laugh.
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Neil Armstrong
So Neil Armstrong has died.
I seriously wonder whether I will see the day in my lifetime when the last person to have walked on the moon dies. There seems little prospect of anybody else landing on the moon. Or anywhere.
I am very disappointed with the future. I want my moon holidays, my flying cars, robo-maids and hoverboards. Not to mentions sex bots.
All we've got spacewise at the moment is a big rover on Mars. A not insignificant achievement, but certainly with little possibility of anything interesting being found. Robots first landed on Mars in the 70s.
The essential problem is that it is impossible to make money out of space. Nobody could possibly make money going to the moon again, let alone Mars or somewhere further away. That means governments, and in the current economic climate (and, I suspect, the climate for many years to come) governments will not possibly be able to consider the costs of putting on on such an immense and useless project.
I seriously wonder whether I will see the day in my lifetime when the last person to have walked on the moon dies. There seems little prospect of anybody else landing on the moon. Or anywhere.
I am very disappointed with the future. I want my moon holidays, my flying cars, robo-maids and hoverboards. Not to mentions sex bots.
All we've got spacewise at the moment is a big rover on Mars. A not insignificant achievement, but certainly with little possibility of anything interesting being found. Robots first landed on Mars in the 70s.
The essential problem is that it is impossible to make money out of space. Nobody could possibly make money going to the moon again, let alone Mars or somewhere further away. That means governments, and in the current economic climate (and, I suspect, the climate for many years to come) governments will not possibly be able to consider the costs of putting on on such an immense and useless project.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Why Fukushima made me pro-nuclear
The piece I was working on finally got into the Japan Times today.
The most interesting thing about the process was the back and forth with the editor, mostly over fact-checking and providing links to my claims. He told me he had to be very careful because of the subject matter.
Of course that is fair enough, and appropriate for an important topic. I felt like pointing out, however, that if anti-nuclear pieces were half as rigorously vetted I wouldn't have felt the need to write anything at all.
Here is my article.
The most interesting thing about the process was the back and forth with the editor, mostly over fact-checking and providing links to my claims. He told me he had to be very careful because of the subject matter.
Of course that is fair enough, and appropriate for an important topic. I felt like pointing out, however, that if anti-nuclear pieces were half as rigorously vetted I wouldn't have felt the need to write anything at all.
Here is my article.
Saturday, 21 July 2012
Know More and Fear Less
Know more and fear less is extremely good advice when it comes to nuclear power, as I have found again and again over the last 16 months.
In Japan however, the motto seems to be Know Less and Fear More.
Nothing illustrates this better than the brouhaha over the last week regarding the 'public hearings' around the country designed to give people a chance to vent about nuclear power. Crowds hostile to nuclear power have been incensed that people more open-minded have been allowed to speak. At the Nagoya hearing on Monday one of the speakers (who are chosen by lottery) turned out to be an employee of Chiba Electric Power Company. When he expressed the opinion that the dangers of radiation have been exaggerated and reminded the audience that nobody died in the Fukushima accident, the enraged mob stormed the stage and tore him limb from limb with their bare hands.
Okay that last part wasn't true, but what did happen is that organizers of the meeting received 480 complaints about the speaker's remarks, with widespread criticism of the fact a power company worker had even been given permission to speak.
480 complaints. That's 480 people who were so upset at being told the truth that they wrote a letter to express their disapproval. Disaster minister Goshi Hosono was forced to step in and promise that the anti-nuclear sentiment of the crowd would never be threatened by an alternate viewpoint again, saying 'If a power company employee is chosen as speaker, he or she will be replaced by someone else."
Way to go on the stifling of dissent, guys! These hearing are fast becoming kangaroo courts, where large numbers of ill-informed people express their unfocused rage at things they don't and are unwilling to understand, and where an intense groupthink phenomenon will quite possibly result in the worst possible outcome for Japan as a whole.
I prefer to find out about the science myself. I must be weird or something.
In Japan however, the motto seems to be Know Less and Fear More.
Nothing illustrates this better than the brouhaha over the last week regarding the 'public hearings' around the country designed to give people a chance to vent about nuclear power. Crowds hostile to nuclear power have been incensed that people more open-minded have been allowed to speak. At the Nagoya hearing on Monday one of the speakers (who are chosen by lottery) turned out to be an employee of Chiba Electric Power Company. When he expressed the opinion that the dangers of radiation have been exaggerated and reminded the audience that nobody died in the Fukushima accident, the enraged mob stormed the stage and tore him limb from limb with their bare hands.
Okay that last part wasn't true, but what did happen is that organizers of the meeting received 480 complaints about the speaker's remarks, with widespread criticism of the fact a power company worker had even been given permission to speak.
480 complaints. That's 480 people who were so upset at being told the truth that they wrote a letter to express their disapproval. Disaster minister Goshi Hosono was forced to step in and promise that the anti-nuclear sentiment of the crowd would never be threatened by an alternate viewpoint again, saying 'If a power company employee is chosen as speaker, he or she will be replaced by someone else."
Way to go on the stifling of dissent, guys! These hearing are fast becoming kangaroo courts, where large numbers of ill-informed people express their unfocused rage at things they don't and are unwilling to understand, and where an intense groupthink phenomenon will quite possibly result in the worst possible outcome for Japan as a whole.
I prefer to find out about the science myself. I must be weird or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)