NHK Japan Sunday News-Fukushima probably exceeds Chernobyl and there's no end in sight(+ more vids)

[stockholmer]

Run time: 04:19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CIgA9TSAK8   Posted on YouTube: March 27, 2011 By YouTube Member: OilFlorida Views on YouTube: 340   Posted on DU: March 27, 2011 By DU Member: stockholmer Views on DU: 3090

 
At 3:00 minutes in

"Fukushima probably exceeds Chernobyl and there is no end in sight"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

more videos

NHK Japan News - Japan NOT yet tested for Plutonium in highly radioactive water (Sunday)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNXQ5ZFrPgc&feature=player_embedded


NHK Japan News confirms Units 1,2, and 3 have sustained reactor vessel breaches (Saturday Night)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd2ddhWwnXU&feature=player_embedded


SURFACE FORECAST: RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES CONCENTRATE OVER N. CALIFORNIA ON MARCH 28, 29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxNIvhpgEuI


Emotional Australian in Tokyo says government just announced on Sunday the tap water is now unsafe FOR ALL, not just infants, masses are feeing Japan, says he has red skin splotches on skin (sound is clear but has synch issues, also some cursing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnvzWrxRFd0&feature=player_embedded#at=71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://english.kyodonews.jp/

"The health ministry has instructed the operator of water purification plants nationwide to temporarily stop taking in rainwater to prevent contamination in tap water following radiation leaks from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, ministry officials said Sunday.

While calling on the plants to ensure stable supply of tap water, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare also proposed covering pools of the plants with tarps to keep out rainwater or to use powdered activated carbon that can help get rid of radioactive materials.

The instruction by the ministry came after radiation levels beyond Japan's regulated standard were found in tap water at multiple purification plants in Fukushima and other prefectures including Tokyo, 220 kilometers southwest of the plant......................"

[Marblehead]

1. 1 million

cancer deaths attributed to Chernobyl

[TheMadMonk]

6. You might want to cite a source for that.

Even Greenpeace only claims 100,000 with the vast majority still to occur over the next 50 odd years.

And it's my susspiscion that those figures are far more likely to be high than low.

Cut the numbers how you like. Just breathing the air spewed out by coal and burning petrochemicals kills as many people EVERY SINGLE YEAR as Chernobyl will kill over a standard three score and ten. (Using GnPc sourced figures.)

[JackRiddler]

12. As usual the pro-nuclear talking point is supposed to be that malaria is better than dysentery.

Who cares about how bad coal is? It doesn't make nuclear better. And you want to do this in a thread about how even the Japanese TV now concedes a terrible disaster has been underway all along?

The only proper answer is to undertake the conversion -- and be it 30 or 40 years, and be it more expensive than all the damned wars for oil -- to renewable energies and ecologically sustainable modes of transport, agriculture and consumption. Beyond hydrocarbons and nuclear altogether. It's harder than any of us imagine and will take a long time. So what? It has to begin now, not when a bunch of bankers finally decide there's profit in it. Not after the oil supply collapses, or the next INEVITABLE meltdown. Anyone using this horror as an opportunity to slam coal is working for them (whether or not consciously or paid to do so -- serving them).

[TheMadMonk]

15. Exactly the fucking problem. Who cares about coal?

Well in fact, those who care the most are those who profit the most, and they (with their pals in the oil industry) do a fucking bang up job of keeping those profits rolling in whilst spending the absolute minimum they can get away with on shielding the public from the byproducts of their activities.

And they get away with it because our individual desire for cheap products, comfort, freedom of movement, convenience in everything we do, is greater than our shared concern for the environment.


And pray tell, exactly how is it rational to declare the best part of a metre rise in sealevels and spending trillions upon trillions of dollars nobody has on wars nobody but the warmongers want, and a flat out rejection of a proven technology, a fair price for achieving those goals?

Take just one of those trillions upon trillions of dollars. Take the best proven reactor design. Encase it in a concrete sarcophagus. Bury it. Build another 199 (or 500) on a production line over ten years. Turn off 200-1000 or more coal fired power plants. Now go and put your renewables in over the next two or three decades, coolly calmly and collectedly AND not in the middle of worldwide conflict and an ongoing escallating environmental disaster. And when you're done you can pour concrete until your heart's content decommissioning nuclear reactors with extreme prejudice.

Tell me again what's rational?

[liberation]

17. "Tell me again what's rational? "

Not your argument, apparently.

If you're already going to spend a cool trillion dollars in burying nuclear reactors underground, you might as well drill a bit deeper and use geothermal heating to produce that steam instead. In fact, that approach would end up coming up cheaper to your proposal and would get us to the renewables sooner.

No need to subsidize your industry en route to actually get the renewables online (middle men only add overheads in both cost and delays).

[TheMadMonk]

22. Read Jack's post first mate.

He's the one that would pay ANY price, including a butchers bill dozens or 100's of times the worst nuclear would offer, even under Soviet mismanagement.


Hmm, care to explain to my why fracking for geothermal is good, when fracking for gas isn't?

[JackRiddler]

19. Utter sophistry. You didn't even read what I wrote, or if you did, you don't care to do anything...

other than repeat how bad coal is, which I don't see anyone here disputing.

We get it. As the only alternative to smallpox, you want cancer. In fact, you champion it. Smallpox bad, cancer good!

As the only alternative to rational argument, you can do absurd false dichotomy. To such an embarrassing degree that it makes any qualifications or expertise claimed irrelevant.

[jimlup]

2. I can see that the 2 standard unrec buzzards are awake...

for my part: Kick and Rec!

[emilyg]

8. I'll k & R

[JackRiddler]

13. There's only two of them? That's good, I suppose.

With persona management the nuclear industry PR departments can multiply their current talking-point-dispensing PR battalions by a factor of ten.

[bvar22]

3. Relax.

Its just some harmless steam being vented.
Nothing to worry about.
I know this because I am smarter that you, and I know SCIENCE!
Nukes are totally SAFE and you all are just
"Wah! The Sky is Falling" assholes.


How many people has OIL killed? Hunh? Hunh?
Answer me THAT!

[bertman]

9. If Duzy's were still in effect, that post would deserve one. Excellent, bvar22.

[TheMadMonk]

11. Ten days ago it WOULD have just been some essentially harmless...

...steam. Radioactive, most definitely, but only for a few minutes.

Instead the operators and regulators decided together to attempt to contain the steam release while the radioactivity decayed.

The hydrogen explosions were the result.

I most certainly have never claimed them to be totally safe. What I have done several times is say that the figures being reported at those times, whilst reason for public concern, were not cause for alarm.

I have said that in any comparision, even using highly pesemistic figures, nuclear power has a demonstrated safety track record two orders of magnitude better than coal.

100% safe? No. Almost 99% safer? YES! The numbers speak for themselves.


In terms of respiratory diseases alone, oil and coal between them have almost certainly killed well over 100m people since the industrial revolution.

In the burning of that oil in cars, about 1 million die every year around the world when those cars attempt to occupy already occupied spaces.

A million or so have died in Iraq over oil.

Afghanistan was penciled in for a war over an oil pipeline, LONG before 9/11 provided an excuse to move in.

A number of recent bloody conflicts in the former Soviet Union have been over oil and gas.

In Nigeria and Somalia, oil is playing its part in making those nations a deadly place for their own people to live.

Libya right now is as much or more about oil as it is about the people fighting to determine their own futures.

Even WWII was in part over oil.


Palm oil is well along the road to completely seeing off the ourang outang in the wild.


Whilst we're making comparisons. 45,000 a month die in the Congo: Mostly over tantalum for our mobile phones and other pieces of personal electronic gimcrakcery and over diamonds for the usual reasons. That's over 400 times the rate at which Chernobyl is killing people. But meh, we haven't cared in four centuries what happens to dark skinned savages in the dark heart of a dark continent, so why the fuck should we start caring now. OMG! The new iPod Nanno is 1/2mm thinner. How cool it that? :sarcasm:

How many somewhat less dark skinned "savages" have died in South America in the feeding of North American appetites? Brazilian beef, Columbian coffee, Acupulco gold, etc., including more bloody oil.


Asked and answered. Got anything to say? Hunh? Hunh?

[JackRiddler]

14. If you bold the word oil often enough it will put the radiation back in the box.

This forum could not be more anti-oil.

Guess what, pointing out the horrors of smallpox does not constitute a defense of cancer. Meanwhile, the sun has risen on a new era. We need only go forward, away from both of these forms of patent insanity.

[TheMadMonk]

16. No it doesn't put the radiation back into the box.

The point is, the amount of radiation out of the box, or is ever likely to get out, EVEN if this situation contiues to go badly south, is little enough that it's worst (and generally avoidable) ill effects pale into insignificance when compared to the ACCEPTED (and gernally unavoidable) ill effects of fossil fuels.

[JackRiddler]

20. Go cancer! Smallpox bad!

[JackRiddler]

21. If this situation goes "badly south" it will turn a big part of Japan into a forbidden zone.

Millions of deaths will follow the worst case scenario.

The comparison to the effects of fossil fuels is not an argument for nuclear power.

A serious answer would look to the alternatives and advocate a conversion away from both of these damaging forms of gaining energy. Starting immediately with efficiencies, changes in transport and agriculture, and building the renewable sources. As long as it takes, as expensive as it might be. A 30 year project? So be it. We should have started it 30 years ago!

[Shining Jack]

4. K&R n/t

[thereismore]

5. The translator is borderline useless. I am not sure that's what he said. nt

[diane in sf]

7. Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated, article...

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/

Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated

Feature story - April 18, 2006
A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.

Our report involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

...

[grahamhgreen]

10. Well that's just f*ckin great. No nukes, WTF!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

18. yeah.....it exceeds it times 6....duh