Heatstroke Deaths Quadruple as Japan Shuns Air Conditioners to Save Power

[GliderGuider]

Heatstroke Deaths Quadruple as Japan Shuns Air Conditioners to Save Power

Deaths from heatstroke in Japan quadrupled in the early part of summer as temperatures rose and air conditioners were switched off in line with government appeals to curb electricity usage to avoid power blackouts.

From June 1 to July 10, the latest period available, 26 people died from heatstroke, compared with six in the same period last year, according to the Fire and Disaster Management Agency. The number of people taken by ambulance to hospitals for heatstroke more than tripled to 12,973, with 48 percent in the most-at-risk group aged 65 years or older.

Temperatures in eastern Japan, including Tokyo, were 3.8 degrees higher than the 30-year average in the last 10 days of June or the highest since at least 1961, according to Hajime Takayama, a forecaster at Japan’s Meteorological Agency. The average temperature in Tokyo in the 10 days was 26.4 degrees Celsius, and temperatures in coming weeks are forecast to be above average, he said.

Japan has shut 35 of its 54 atomic reactors for safety checks after the March 11 earthquake triggered the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl, reducing total power capacity by 11 percent. Conservation efforts amid hotter temperatures are raising concern of a repeat of last year, when a record 1,718 people died of heatstroke as the summer heat broke records.

[otohara]

1. MY SIL Wants To Run Away From Japan

it's so hot in Tokyo

[zazen]

2. freakish tragedy or harbinger of peak energy-related dieoff?

Deaths of the old and infirm due to rolling blackouts and then healthcare and food/water shortages is the first phase we keep being warned about.

[GliderGuider]

3. Even if it's not a harbinger, it's a cautionary lesson about the risks ahead. nt

[FBaggins]

4. Better title...

..."more die from the lack of nuclear power than the second-worst nuclear accident in history caused"


And it's only mid July.

This has happened before. Many of the 15,000 people who died in the heat waves in France (2003?) were because reactors had to shut down.

[madokie]

5. And the reactors had to shut down because of the heat, you fail to mention

So nuclear energy is not the answer going forward

[FBaggins]

7. Somewhat... but not exactly.

They "had" to shutdown, not because it was too hot to operate reactors, but because those reactors were cooled by rivers and their environmental regulations restricted the maximum temperature of the outflow of cooling water. The heat wave meant that the water started at a higher temperature and could not be used to cool the reactors (while operating) without exceeding those temperatures.

Not that the environmental regulations were a bad idea in general... but the end result was literally saving fish at the expense of human lives.

So nuclear energy is not the answer going forward

I wouldn't say so, but it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that France has too many eggs in their nuclear basket. No one generating souce should make up that high a percentage of a nation's power supply.

[madokie]

30. It matters not what part had to shut down it matters that there weren't

enough water to keep them cool so they shut them down, no electricity, nada, zilch.. The thing is they had to shut down so they are not a good solution any way shape or from going forward. Damn sure don't need to add to the ones we have thats for sure.
Nuclear is proving that it is not a safe way of making our electicity

[FBaggins]

31. Sorry... I guess I wasn't clear enough.

There was plenty of water to keep them cool. They only "had" to shut down because somebody made a rule that was unknowingly traded human lives for fish. They could have operated the reactors without trouble.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. There was plenty of water.

But the river has max temps that are set to protect fish (which generally try to run in cooler water), and the river was a few degrees warmer at that point than normal, so the reactor would have exceeded environmental regulation by adding more heat to the river.

Probably wouldn't have bothered the fish at all for a one time deal, but over time, it has been well studied and proven that fish spawn better, move better, etc, if the rivers don't get too hot.

We've done a lot of this sort of research here in the Pacific Northwest for protecting Salmon runs.

[GliderGuider]

6. More people die from heatstroke than any other climate cause.

Whenever there is a shortfall in electricity in the summer, people die. We have become dependent on technology for simple survival, and have organized our lives around the naive faith that it will always be there. This aspect of the problem extends far beyond the nuclear power bunfight.

[FBaggins]

8. Absolutely correct.

Let's take it one step farther, however, and remember that climate change that can be placed at the feet of coal power will only make this problem worse in coming decades.

On our 50-100 year march toward cleaner/safer power supplies, we're killing far more people by targeting nuclear power before coal.

[GliderGuider]

9. We pick the low-hanging fruit first.

Nuclear power is an easier target. It's smaller than coal, and it's more vulnerable because it has public opinion running solidly against it. We'll use this fight to gain some practice knocking off entrenched energy interests, and then use what we've learned against coal.

We don't have 50 to 100 years. We've got 20-30 years. Fortunately, Peak Oil is going to throw a gigantic spanner in the works, and coal use will drop during the global depression. :evilgrin:

[FBaggins]

11. I'd rather get rid of the deadlier fruit first.

And no... 20-30 years doesn't get us there even in the most optomistic of the realistic scenarios.

And unfortunately, all peak oil will do will shift us more toward gas and coal.

[GliderGuider]

14. So would I, frankly, but I'll take what's available.

Both nuclear and fossil have to be shut down eventually. If nuclear power is first on the block, that's OK with me.

[FBaggins]

16. Even when it means that the deadlier problem becaomes LESS "available"?

Renewables can only grow so fast. Cutting out nuclear makes coal (etc) more irreplacable.

[GliderGuider]

29. I can't change the course of events, so I will accept what happens, yes.

If I was a policy-maker I might be more exercised over it, but I'm just some electrons on the internet. Both coal and nuclear need to come down. If the order of the takedown is sub-optimal why should I get upset? There's not a damn thing I can do about it.

[FBaggins]

10. We should also note something that many anti-nuke apologists miss

There is a common assumption that people should just learn to live with less. Sometimes it's hidden in language about "smart grids" or "efficiency", but the 100% renewable grid necessarily means that there will be some period when electricity will not be available in the amounts that people would demand if they could (as they do now) use however much they like.

We should remember that this position costs lives. Lives of the poor and elderly.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

17. There is a common assumption that people should just learn to live with less.

Yes. And an even more common assumption is that everyone needs MORE.

Ecology looks at the balances and the mechanisms forcing balance. Think of it as a pendulum. When you do, you can see that the balance is nowhere near center and will swing back. When it does, the people who want more will be the most injured. The people who are living in balance will hardly be effected. Like the old country song: "A country boy will survive."

The question each of will answer is: Is needing more gonna bite me in the ass later on?
The answer is actually not a mystery, is it?

[FBaggins]

18. Yes. That's correct.

The problem is in not recognizing that making that decision for others has consequences.

[BeFree]

19. Do I need more nukes?

No. Does that have consequences for others? Yes. It means that in the end they will all be better off.

[FBaggins]

20. Except the ones that are dead, right?

They won't be better off surely?

[BeFree]

21. Right

The ones killed by the release from nukes will be dead. They didn't stand a chance.
Too late to save them. But for future inhabitants of this little blue ball spinning in space, no nukes is good nukes.

[FBaggins]

22. Nobody has been "killed by the release from the nukes"

But people die every day due to coal emissions.

Such a shame that you care less about them than about your own irrational fears.

[BeFree]

23. Nobody!?!?!?!

You just lost whatever crumb of credibility you ever had. "Nobody has been killed"

The only question is: Do you even care?

[FBaggins]

24. Nope. Not one.

(Assuming that you're talking about Fukushima and not "nukes" in general to include Chernobyl)

Only a handful of people (a couple dozen?) have even received the minimum dose that has been associated by health physicists with an increased risk of cancer later in life.

While coal kills thousands upon thousands every month.

[BeFree]

25. Crap

You got me there.... even tho millions have died from cancer over the years, not one died from radiation from nukes!! We're safe!! </end of stupidity>

So why do the doctors keep claiming radiation causes cancer? If you are right, then radiation does not cause cancer, never has, never will.

So...... what the fuck are ya gonna say now?

[FBaggins]

26. What percentage of total radiation comes from reactors?

So now you'll lay every cancer death at the feet of reactors?

Does the radiation go back in time and kill those cancer patients as well?

Hint - It isn't that radiation doesn't cause cancer... it's that even in Japan, only a tiny portion of the overall radiation came from Fukushima.

[BeFree]

27. Nukes

Go back and read it again for the first time. Apparently.

So, you do agree that releases from nukes cause cancer? Of f'n course you do.

So why claim releases from nukes has "killed nobody"?

I know, you are trapped. But you said it. Your words. Your credibility.

[txlibdem]

28. Let's keep it in perspective: coal kills between 1 million and 2 million humans a year

In your wildest fevered anti-nuke nightmares, exactly how many people have died at the hands of nuclear reactors? How can you compare a death machine like coal power plants with the fear that nuclear MIGHT, possibly be the cause of some deaths due to cancer. You fail to factor in cancers caused by the chemicals polluting drinking water, many of which are caused by fossil fuels. Chemicals such as BPA that are in the products we use, which are only just now being linked to health problems, and the list goes on and on and on.

You keep trying to "stop" nuclear while the real killer keeps on killing and killing and killing.

I've made this offer to anti-nukes before: help the rest of us end the use of fossil fuels and we will help you end nuclear power. Will you stand on the picket line against fossil fuels with us?

[FBaggins]

32. I made clear enough that I was talking about Fukushima

You can play word games all you like.

Even with "all reactors" added to the mix, "releases from nukes" make up an incredibly tiny proportion of cancers.

Far FAR lower than that from coal... and coal kills other ways too.

[kristopher]

12. Most of the deaths covered were people outside and active at midday.

Japan isn't nearly as dependent on air conditioning as we are here. There is even a strong aversion to the use of AC by many who claim it promotes poor health.

The attempt to establish a causal link between the increased incidence of heat stroke and the shut down of the nuclear plants strikes me as yet another attempt to protect an industry under siege.

[FBaggins]

15. Which is why the PM said "Power-saving also requires sensitivity to heatstroke risk"

Right?

The number of people taken to the hospital for heatstroke tripled to 13k... half of them elderly. Even though last year's heat broke records.


"There's a risk the number of patients will continue to rise if people stop using air conditioners at home," said Yasufumi Miyake, associate professor at Showa University Hospital. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/12/MN8T1K9F8F.DTL