Japan disaster may mean setback for U.S. nuclear industry [The only associated good news]

[truthisfreedom]

Source: Washington Post

Stymied by concerns about safety and cost, the U.S. nuclear power industry has struggled to make a comeback for decades. Now the revival may have to wait even longer, as earthquake damage to a reactor in northern Japan has again highlighted the potential hazards of going nuclear.

(snip)

Unlike past crises such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which did not involve natural disasters, the problems at the plant in Japan were triggered by earthquakes, which disrupted the power supply to the reactors' cooling systems. As a result, some experts said that two plants in California that lie near fault lines - Diablo Canyon and San Onofre - could come under extra scrutiny. Both plants have been checked by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for their ability to withstand tsunamis and earthquakes.

"Just when Japan needed power most for recovering from the natural disaster, the collapse of the electrical grid system basically complicated the crisis because the nuclear power plants themselves had to shut down to mitigate the inherent radiation hazard," said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond Nuclear. "It clearly demonstrates that this technology in times of national crisis . . . cannot be relied upon when you need it the most."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/12/AR2011031205615.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011031100651

---

There's more.

We started thinking nuclear again after the great spill. Now we're going to start thinking alternative again after the great meltdown. I can't imagine being in or near Japan right now. How horrible. It's too much for me to think about.

[Abq_Sarah]

1. Next thing you know

All reactors, coal fired plants, natural gas plants, windmills and solar panels will have to be built to withstand a 9.9 earthquake.

[Wilms]

3. Or whatever the number plus a margin.

You ain't wrong.

[truthisfreedom]

4. Naw. Nukes, yes, but with diversified, de-centralized power such as solar and wind,

it doesn't matter if some stations go down, as long as there are others. Keep in mind that Japan is a pretty small country and relies heavily on that one reactor for power.

[Abq_Sarah]

5. Small country

With a relatively large population and industry that requires a reliable consistent source of power.

Their options are pretty limited.

[msongs]

6. yep those nuke plants are putting out reliable and consistent power right now lol nt

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Those three plants aren't

but the rest of them still are.

[kristopher]

13. 11 reactors are offline.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. At least 3 were offline anyway for maintenence.

[kristopher]

19. That makes me wonder about something; perhaps you know?

In the US 36 of the 104 reactors in the US fleet have gone offline unexpectedly with outages lasting more than one year - sometime substantially longer.

Do you think the Japanese Nuclear Industry Safety Agency will or should follow our practice and pretend those types of reactors do not exist for purposes of calculating the effective capacity factor of their fleet?

[AtheistCrusader]

21. I think they already do.

No source handy. But the three that were offline at the site in question were refueling or something. Short term downtime. Number 6 is a GE Mark II, so I doubt (but I suppose it is possible) there was a mechanical reason to take these particular three offline for corrosion fixes or other.

May have been for inspection as well. If you find an official reason, I am curious.

[defendandprotect]

15. "Reliable" is an odd word with one of these reactors possibly in meltdown -- !!

[truthisfreedom]

7. You can be sure that the amount of solar going in on rooftops is going to explode once they get this

situation under control and start assessing options for power in Japan.

I wonder just how much power they have without the reactors.

[defendandprotect]

14. It's also a nation which has suffered being nuked and radiated ...

seems rather ironic that they went down this path --

But nuclear reactors aren't safe for anyone --

and we have little explored alternative energy --

let's start subsidizing that -- and we will move ahead quickly into safer

and saner territory!!

[oldtime dfl_er]

2. wow, I wouldn't call that a setback

except for the creeps who profit off nuclear power.

[winstars]

8. No Nukes??? Wasn't that an Album???

What's an album??? Never mind. Hopefully this will prove that these things are just not safe. What ever happened to the whole 'spent fuel' thingy??? Yucca Mountain and all that.. Maybe the 'pug scum might want to rethink that light bulb bullshit. Yeah, conservation is a stupid idea!!!

[defendandprotect]

12. There was a terrific "anti-atomic bomb" song ... from a musical on broadway ....

can't remember the name of it -- or the play at the moment!

[defendandprotect]

10. How many more times can we bury this industry -- nuclear plants are unsafe --

but ironic that Japan -- after suffering so during the war due to our dropping

atomic bombs on their two cities agreed to have nuclear power plants in their

country!!

Eerie -- !!

[Old and In the Way]

11. I thought Japan was more dependent on nuclear energy than it is.

Japan had 55 reactors in operation, one under construction, and plans to increase nuclear power's share of electricity from 30 percent in 2006 to more than 40 percent within the next decade.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2007/prn200719.html


I imagine that this harsh reality is going to have a deep impact on Japan's energy plans...

[AtheistCrusader]

17. I think that doc is out of date.

There were two reactors under construction at the plant where the reactor housing blew last night. 1-3 are the problem reactors. 4,5 were offline. 6 was also offline, and is a newer Mark II design. 7-8 are under construction.

[grahamhgreen]

18. Yay! There's only 60 or so years of uranium left anyway

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Why we are geting the blietzkrieg to tell us how safe

it is

[golfguru]

22. The rate of deaths due to nuclear are thousand times less than

coal mining and refinery accidents. If you add people with lung diseases due to
burning of fossil fuels, nuclear looks even better.

But why be logical? Is'nt it better to be anti-nuclear energy? It makes us feel good!

[jaybeat]

23. You're comparing smoking and jumping off a building

They both kill you. But since "you" in this case is "us" I don't think supporting either is "logical."

[psychopomp]

24. I don't get it either

There are safer types of nuclear technology that are viable that could help to cushion our bottoms after we fall off peak oil. Nuclear energy need not be dismissed outright, especially when much of the US isn't near fault zones.

[kristopher]

25. Where do your stats come from?

I'm guessing they do not include these numbers.

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health
Alexey B. Nesterenko1, Vassily B. Nesterenko1,†, Alexey V. Yablokov2
Article first published online: 30 NOV 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04822.x © 2009 New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

...

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations. Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination. Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups. From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[golfguru]

27. Consider the worst earthquake on record in Japan which

might fail to kill a single human beingdue to nuclear power plant demise in Japan,
then it is rational and logical to say that nuclear power is SAFER than coal mining,
deep water oil drilling, refineries which routinely have lethal fires, and handling of natural gas
under pressure. Thousand times more people have died from household natural gas explosions
than all of the nuclear accidents combined with the exception of CHERNOBYL which was
entirely due to careless maintenance by the Soviet communist regime. When I was employed at
Argonne National Labs, we did a thorough evaluation of the Chernobyl plant and our findings
were forwarded to the NRC. The consensus was there were two main reasons for Chernobyl accident:
Faulty design and insufficient safety procedures and maintenance.

Nothing is safe in life, not even riding horses or bicycles. But over the last 60 years
nuclear power has the least fatalities and therefor safer than other power sources. Wind
and solar are certainly safer but will take a very long time to produce enough power.
Then consider all the lung diseases attributed to burning of fossil fuels and nuclear
has the clear advantage for several decades to come.

[pickle juice]

28. And there is an absolute limit to the power that can be derived from solar

(disregarding the fact that all usable energy -ultimately- comes from the sun however indirectly)...and that is that few inhabited places on the planet receive more than a couple hundred watts per meter^2 of solar power...period. Anybody who thinks that figure can be exceeded is a good bet for being suckered into investing in various kinds of perpetual motion gizmos...

Hydrocarbons are energy-dense precisely because they're the result of millions of years of concentrating insolation.

[pickle juice]

26. How dare you inject facts into a perfectly good hysterical discussion?

:eyes: