Select to expand quote

Buster fin said..

Kamikuza said..

lotofwind said..
11years after the meltdown, is it safe yet to live near ****ushima?
Decommissioning the plant and clean up is estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars and last 30-40 years.
And this was a " Safe " facility built to withstand typhoons, bombings, earth quacks and tsunamis. Epic fail.

I guarantee the few saying "yes" to going nuclear would be the first to protest and have a whinge if it was being built near them.

Yes. People have returned to the town closest to the affected power station (Daiichi) in 2019.
Decommissioning is budgeted for in the cost of power to the public*. The workers all have jobs-for-life anyway, and there's a new industry for even more jobs
It was built to withstand a certain level of disaster**. They suffered no damage from the "earth quack" despite ground acceleration being more than 20% over maximum design specs, but the tsunami was greater than predictions. As a failure, it was reasonably successful.

I'm fine with it -- live near nuclear power stations already. As a disaster, the ****ushima event has been relatively benign


*Tepco is a private company and is paying the bulk of the decommissioning costs, which will be completed in under 13 years. (Just found the figure)

**upgrade work and evaluations were going on, based on earthquake and tsunami data from the region covering the past 900 years. This was literally a once-in-a-millenium event.

It's been 11 years and they are still tidying up. 13 more years till it's completed is unrealistic optimism. The government and Tepco are not to be trusted.

Yes I'm sure the Australian government and their big business partners are eminently trustworthy and have never over-promised and under-delivered

What's your problem exactly? That management is unable to accurately predict the future or that the workers aren't putting in enough effort to achieve the deadline?

Back to safety. From Wikipedia:

It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[11] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[12] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected.[13] Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near ****ushima have ranged[14] in the academic literature from none[15] to hundreds.[12]Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement following emergency mass evacuation.[16][17] For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit range from 34 to "greater than 50".[13][18][19] The victims include hospital inpatients and elderly people at nursing facilities who died from causes such as hypothermia, deterioration of underlying medical problems, and dehydration.


So the worst possible natural disaster causing a massive reactor problem.......... and nothing really happened. Given that, and how stable Australia is, the greenies really have their work cut out for them don't they? But the fearmongering of the past still has effect.

And nothing really happened ???? Wow, really ??? lol
160 000 people evacuated, lots of towns and homes still uninhabitable.
This is a pic of Yuji Onuma visiting his hometown of Futaba in 2020, nearly 10 years after evacuating. The town is still off-limits for habitation.

More than one abandoned town in the world.

I'd actually guess there are more abandoned towns in the last 50,000 years of human evolution than there are inhabited ones today.


68 years of nuclear power, adding up to somewhere around 10% of all the worlds electricity generated.

Just 2 of the 450+ have caused abandoned towns.

One was a dodgy Russian design that wouldn't get built anywhere else, the other hit by something nothing would be designed against.


Farming, mining, natural climate change, war, pestilence, flood, population movement, manufactured economic housing markets and many other things have cause far more.

Here is one, nothing nuclear about this.

Lets stop building water supply dams.

Too many abandoned towns.

Drink your own urine folks.

^^^^^ Yes agreed they are sad pics above, but,
so that means its ok to destroy more. You think some would learn from these mistakes, not say, yeah its cool, its happened before in other areas so dosent matter if it does again.
I think 1 town and land destroyed forever from "safe" nuclear power is enough????
What if it was your house and land you had to leave and 10 years later could still not return.??
but I guess you think a certain number of thousands of KM's of uninhabitable land is more than acceptable??
How many 1000 square KM's of unusable land, means its worth saving $50 off you power bill, to you ?
as long as its not yours I guess.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
And nothing really happened ???? Wow, really ??? lol
160 000 people evacuated, lots of towns and homes still uninhabitable.
This is a pic of Yuji Onuma visiting his hometown of Futaba in 2020, nearly 10 years after evacuating. The town is still off-limits for habitation.

If you kept reading your two-years-out-of-date Guardian article, the very next sentence says people are choosing not to return.

Unlike your man there Yuji Onuma, who in Jan 2022 stayed at his home in Futaba and began making repairs, in anticipation of the evacuation order being lifted in June this year and his family's eventual moving back in.

The three towns that are the only ones currently still under evacuation order totaled less than 50,000 in population prior to 2011. Futaba itself was dying with the population dropping to less than 7,000 pre-2011.

So ... what's your point exactly?

Yes, really quite benign. In the years since, do you know how many people have died due to radiation exposure? I'll wait.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
^^^^^ Yes agreed they are sad pics above, but,
so that means its ok to destroy more. You think some would learn from these mistakes, not say, yeah its cool, its happened before in other areas so dosent matter if it does again.
I think 1 town and land destroyed forever from "safe" nuclear power is enough????
What if it was your house and land you had to leave and 10 years later could still not return.??
but I guess you think a certain number of thousands of KM's of uninhabitable land is more than acceptable??
How many 1000 square KM's of unusable land, means its worth saving $50 off you power bill, to you ?
as long as its not yours I guess.

How many people will have died due to the CO2 emissions as the nuclear power stations were shut down in knee-jerk reactions across Europe? It'll be more than 1.

It's not forever.

People have been compensated for loss of land, property and moving on.

It's not uninhabitable.

It's not just $50 off the bill, is it.

The reactors of the nuclear plant closest to the epicenter of the fourth most powerful quake in recorded history were... fine.

People leave areas due to flood, fire, famine, wars etc etc

The point is people assume that a nuclear power plant breaking in half killed thousands, and it didn't. Not ONE. It may have given cancer to up to 50 people MAYBE depending on which study you read. Some say none.

Back in the Chernobyl days, the news headlines said a massive area uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. They've now been running tours right up to the facility for at least 10yrs, you just wear a normal P1 mask. Obviously not right inside.... but is sure as sh!t isn't a death sentence to go within 20km of it like the anti nuclear mob have you believe.


Comprehension skills..... basic science.... ability to process info. vs. screaming "ohh myyy garrrddddd radiation...."

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
People leave areas due to flood, fire, famine, wars etc etc

The point is people assume that a nuclear power plant breaking in half killed thousands, and it didn't. Not ONE. It may have given cancer to up to 50 people MAYBE depending on which study you read. Some say none.

Back in the Chernobyl days, the news headlines said a massive area uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. They've now been running tours right up to the facility for at least 10yrs, you just wear a normal P1 mask. Obviously not right inside.... but is sure as sh!t isn't a death sentence to go within 20km of it like the anti nuclear mob have you believe.


Comprehension skills..... basic science.... ability to process info. vs. screaming "ohh myyy garrrddddd radiation...."

Actually, there's that guy who worked there a couple of times, he died of lung cancer and they attributed it to the radiation, so there's a single death. I'm sure smoking a pack a day had nothing to do with it...

But yeah, The Science is Settled -- thousands of years! don't you know.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

lotofwind said..
And nothing really happened ???? Wow, really ??? lol
160 000 people evacuated, lots of towns and homes still uninhabitable.
This is a pic of Yuji Onuma visiting his hometown of Futaba in 2020, nearly 10 years after evacuating. The town is still off-limits for habitation.

If you kept reading your two-years-out-of-date Guardian article, the very next sentence says people are choosing not to return.

Unlike your man there Yuji Onuma, who in Jan 2022 stayed at his home in Futaba and began making repairs, in anticipation of the evacuation order being lifted in June this year and his family's eventual moving back in.

The three towns that are the only ones currently still under evacuation order totaled less than 50,000 in population prior to 2011. Futaba itself was dying with the population dropping to less than 7,000 pre-2011.

So ... what's your point exactly?

Yes, really quite benign. In the years since, do you know how many people have died due to radiation exposure? I'll wait.

Oh, thats ok then, he was able to move back home after 12 years. Awesome.
I cant understand why smart people who had to leave their life long homes and investments for 12 years, after a nuclear disaster, have "chosen" not to return.......what idiots. ???? lol

Could you imagine the whinging on seabreeze if the Aus gov. made them evacuate their homes for 10 years,
People rioted here for having to put a mask on in a shop for 5mins, lol

I doubt very much the real story from ****ushima for the local Jap gov has even come out as yet.
The Asian countrys dont exactly have a good rep. for not covering up their environmental disasters time and time again.

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
Back in the Chernobyl days, the news headlines said a massive area uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years. They've now been running tours right up to the facility for at least 10yrs, you just wear a normal P1 mask. Obviously not right inside.... but is sure as sh!t isn't a death sentence to go within 20km of it like the anti nuclear mob have you believe.


Comprehension skills..... basic science.... ability to process info. vs. screaming "ohh myyy garrrddddd radiation...."

Visiting an irradiated site for an hour or so is not going to be a problem, but living there would be very different. So in the case of Chernobyl, its not like people can move back and expect to have no effect from the increased radiation.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..
Visiting an irradiated site for an hour or so is not going to be a problem, but living there would be very different. So in the case of Chernobyl, its not like people can move back and expect to have no effect from the increased radiation.

Yes, it's about dose over time; when exposure levels have fallen below a specified value that is deemed to be safe for long-term occupation, they open up previously closed areas. Which is what's been happening in ****ushima, as radiation levels now are similar to natural background radiation levels.

^^^ Oh agreed. But the anti nuke lobby need to realise that 1960's USSR tech and a stupid foreman running recklessly ahead is not really the same as modern Australian experience / tech/ regulation.

And that thorium is very different. And our stability in many areas is rather better than typhoon/tsunami prone Japan coastline. And and and.

Even IF the new ideas in renewables became reality right now they still could not supply all we need...... a considered opinion surmises that nuclear is the go.

Select to expand quote

lotofwind said..
Oh, thats ok then, he was able to move back home after 12 years. Awesome.

I cant understand why smart people who had to leave their life long homes and investments for 12 years, after a nuclear disaster, have "chosen" not to return.......what idiots. ???? lol

I doubt very much the real story from ****ushima for the local Jap gov has even come out as yet.
The Asian countrys dont exactly have a good rep. for not covering up their environmental disasters time and time again.

No, he's choosing to move back, despite being your poster boy for anti-nuke power and being compensated for the hassle as well as being funded to live elsewhere, because it'll be safe to do so. Which was your point wasn't it, that it's "uninhabital" for "tens of thousands of years" -- and it isn't.

Probably because they've put down roots elsewhere, or found a better place to live...? People relocate all the time, in case you weren't aware -- not everyone lives in the same block of land their whole lives.

Oh right here comes the conspiracy theories LOL get away with you.
Exactly how are they covering up nuclear meltdowns and the on-going cleanup and decommission work...? LOL get away with you.

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..
^^^ Oh agreed. But the anti nuke lobby need to realise that 1960's USSR tech and a stupid foreman running recklessly ahead is not really the same as modern Australian experience / tech/ regulation.

And that thorium is very different. And our stability in many areas is rather better than typhoon/tsunami prone Japan coastline. And and and.

Even IF the new ideas in renewables became reality right now they still could not supply all we need...... a considered opinion surmises that nuclear is the go.

You'd only have to have a couple of people fall down the lithium mine and break their necks for it to be more deadly than ****ushima. Well, kinda...

As I pointed out, all the reactors in Japan -- even at the power station closest to the epicenter -- survived the biggest "earth quack" in Japanese recorded history, and the other 7 reactors at ****ushima survived the unprecedented tsunami.
It's the quakes you have to worry about, Japan sits on the convergence of 4 plates IIRC and we have quakes all the time. Typhoons aren't such a problem, and tsunami are rare.

Now the big question is -- will lotofwind be happy with a fusion reactor in his back yard...? perhaps so long as we don't tell him that a fission bomb is used as a detonator to make a fusion bomb thousands of times more powerful

There are far more deaths from people installing solar panels.
www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources

Also slightly off topic but did they Adani protestors ever move on to protesting the dangers of Lithium mining?

They only count the people that died 3 months after Chernobyl. Lots more died months and years later of cancer and other problems. Birth defects etc. But of course this can't be linked directly. There was a special name for the clean up crews I cant remember it. There were lots of them and I am pretty sure that most of them died within 10 years. Yes some of them would have died anyhow but lots of young healthy men died of cancer. But of course that can't be linked to Chernobyl.
Yes coal mining has killed a lot more people than nuclear. But that was back in the good old days when dying on the job was considered OK.

^^ And that why they're doing better now with F U K ushima and still studying it. My wiki quote is up to date

I repeat, you can't use 1960's russian tech and a reckless foreman as any sort of analog for a modern western reactor. Not in any way.

I repeat - the greenies talked about a massive are with horrible radiation for 10,000 years blah blah. Its nothing like that.

Not saying Chernobyl was nothing - but you can't use it in any way to say we should not consider nuclear power. You just can't.

Not at all what I am trying to say. Saying only 30 or so people died from Chernobyl is just not right in my opinion.

I don't think anyone here did say that...?
But they are saying "nuclear is unsafe look at F UK Ushima....... " and that is not correct, as nobody died as a direct result and given the massive natural disaster it shows how safe nuclear is.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
They only count the people that died 3 months after Chernobyl. Lots more died months and years later of cancer and other problems. Birth defects etc. But of course this can't be linked directly. There was a special name for the clean up crews I cant remember it. There were lots of them and I am pretty sure that most of them died within 10 years. Yes some of them would have died anyhow but lots of young healthy men died of cancer. But of course that can't be linked to Chernobyl.
Yes coal mining has killed a lot more people than nuclear. But that was back in the good old days when dying on the job was considered OK.

Liquidators.

"lots of young healthy men died of cancer" simply isn't true. Studies over the past 20 years have struggle to find statistically significant correlation for the Liquidators and increased rates of cancer, let alone fatalities. Although PTSD-related alcoholism killed a whole bunch.

If the reports are accurate, the Liquidators were exposed to levels no a lot more than is currently recommended for workers in the field...

There's a town in somewhere mad like Iraq that has natural background radiation 2 and half times higher than that recommended level... and the inhabitants have no greater rates of cancer than places with "normal" levels 100 times lower. Bit of a mystery.

The link posted said 30 something. Plenty of other reports say low numbers. As I said its just my opinion that this is not right.
"If the reports are right" , who wrote them? The people trying to cover the mess up.
Maybe its possible some of those reports aren't accurate.

The link posted that you refer to is Enginering.com - and they quoted the International Atomic Energy Agency as saying 31 ppl died from acute radiation sickness in the three mths after Chernobyl.
They then say we invite comments and debate below.

That's a million times better than the normal frothing youtube videos made by a fat american in his lounge room that are posted here.

Perhaps many more did die later. But again, even if 1000 did, that is in no way an argument against modern nuclear. It was old tech run by fools. Its like saying boats are a crap idea, look at the Titanic.
However I doubt very much that is the case if many reports / studies claim low death rate. Why would a western researcher have any interest in covering up the true cost of an eastern bloc country's fk-up 20 or 30yrs prior? Then why would many of them do the same...? Makes more sense to believe the studies, yeah?

There is plenty of info online.
www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/liquidators/

The numbers vary and the numbers of deaths vary even more. Talks of secret hospitals, etc etc. It was a long time and a lot of people involved.

Again I am not saying its a bad idea. It was a massive human error and old technology as you said.

France pushed pretty hard for nuclear and is still mainly nuclear powered. France , America and large Asian companies designed small plants so any disasters like Chernobyl would be much smaller or actually never happen . Its like comparing a 1990's computer with a computer 10 years later. There was too much public pressure after Chernobyl so new technology and modern reactors never really got a chance. Govts and big companies turned away from it.
Unfortunately governments and big companies have recently once again made a complete mess of some nuclear power plants and given it a bad name.
There was a race on to be the first to figure out what to do with nuclear waste in France. That would make you very rich. Now no big companies will touch it. Nuclear power or the waste problem.
France gave out electric heaters after building a few nuclear power plants because they had too much electricity!
How much waste is created from nuclear power and where does it go? How bad is it really?
How much mining goes on for new materials to make batteries or solar panels that will end up in land fill in a few years time?

Select to expand quote

Mark _australia said..

Perhaps many more did die later. But again, even if 1000 did, that is in no way an argument against modern nuclear. It was old tech run by fools. Its like saying boats are a crap idea, look at the Titanic.
However I doubt very much that is the case if many reports / studies claim low death rate. Why would a western researcher have any interest in covering up the true cost of an eastern bloc country's fk-up 20 or 30yrs prior? Then why would many of them do the same...? Makes more sense to believe the studies, yeah?

Its a bit more sobering if you think that those 'fools' didn't think that it was old technology or that they were fools. Of course they didn't. It was the latest technology and they were aware... just like anyone going into it today.

The fact that they made a silly mistake didn't mean that they were fools, just that there was a failure that no one had accounted for being able to happen. Just like today, when mistakes can be made. You would actually be a fool to think that mistakes can no longer be made.

I think that if nuclear power can be located in the middle of nowhere, where if it did irradiate the surrounds and didn't matter to a lot of people, then go for it. If the energy required to get cooling water there and transmit the power back to where people need it, then I am okay with that. If it creates newer areas nearby that can then be used, its a bonus.

But to say it's cheap and discount a failure is a bit risky. If it stands up economically in the middle of nowhere with the associated costs to get staff there, get the infrastructure there, and then get the power out of there, then its worth considering.

They were going to build one at Geraldton,
but they thought it would just get stolen.

FN I stand by fools comment - you raise some valid points but the most basic concept of nuclear reactor control, taught in Y12 science is about the insertion of the graphite rods to act as a 'throttle'
The Chernobyl ones were built a little different and they were either not trained, or made a reckless error in the re-insertion and caused a runaway reaction. This is not a Homer Simpson in his control room - they should have known better, or simply were not trained
Its inexcusable. Its like having sparkies not know which wire is live, cos its turned off when they work on it.

Select to expand quote

tarquin1 said..
"If the reports are right" , who wrote them? The people trying to cover the mess up.
Maybe its possible some of those reports aren't accurate.

Those assessing the amount of radiation the Liquidators were exposed to. Don't have to look far to get the data on that. I added the caveat because I'm quoting others without looking any further to validate what I read.