Slashdot Mirror


Fukushima Radioactive Fallout Nears Chernobyl Levels

0WaitState writes "The cumulative releases from Fukushima of iodine-131 and cesium-137 have reached 73% and 60% respectively of the amounts released from the 1986 Chernobyl accident. These numbers were reached independently from a monitoring station in Sacramento, CA, and Takasaki, Japan. The iodine and cesium releases are due to the cooking off of the more volatile elements in damaged fuel rods."

35 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Fear-mongering Technobabble by pipingguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    OMG, we're all gonna die! Again!

  2. Misleading summary by znu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    The difference between this accident and Chernobyl, they say, is that at Chernobyl a huge fire released large amounts of many radioactive materials, including fuel particles, in smoke. At Fukushima Daiichi, only the volatile elements, such as iodine and caesium, are bubbling off the damaged fuel.

    That's a really important difference. It means the total release of radioactive material is far smaller. And the iodine, at least, is a lot less scary than the sort of stuff you get from fuel particles -- it has a half-life of only 8 days, so there's no real long-term environmental threat from that. (The cesium is rather worse -- half life of ~30 years.)

    --
    This space unintentionally left unblank.
    1. Re:Misleading summary by Eivind · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's ridicolous fear-mongering to post that we're at so-and-so percentage-level with regard to release of 2 specific radioactive substances, without mentioning that this in no way implies that we're even close to similar in general.

      Like you point out, in particular iodine is a short-lived and thus mostly local problem (and even local radiation-levels have been very modest this far). Half-life of 8 days means that it's more than 99% gone in 2 months and 99.99% gone in 4 months and so on. (basically add a 9 every month)

      There may yet be larger releases, but -this- far we've got ~20.000 dead due to earthquake and tsunami, and ~0 dead due to radiation released from the powerplants.

    2. Re:Misleading summary by ZombieWomble · · Score: 4, Informative

      Several people have radiation sickness from high exposure already, high doses have been recorded up to 40km away, and radiation kills long term (unless it's a massive dose), so that's not a very useful statistic. It is useful to know what levels of radiation have been released.

      All of these points are, I believe, at least hyperbole, and at worst outright scaremongering.

      While it's true several plant workers have been taken to hospital for monitoring after receiving acute doses higher than safety recommendations (>100 mSv), this is many times lower than the typical onset of "radiation sickness". The safety threshold is chosen as the limit of detectability for increased cancer risk over a lifetime, which puts it on the order of 1 or 2 percent increase in lifetime risk of cancer. Given they're doing very valuable work, this is not that dramatic a risk - the risk to other emergency responders in the wake of the tsunami is probably much greater.

      With regards to the "high" doses 40 km away, these need to again be put in perspective - it is "high" compared to the local background (although often only 50 to 100% more than usual, barring localised spikes), but there are places in the world where natural radiation is almost 100 times greater than the typically quoted "background dose", and people live there just fine. Combined with the fact that most of this radiation is short-lived Iodine isotopes, a ballpark estimate suggests that people living outside the plant would only see a dose of 1 mSv or less by the time the iodine had decayed away, even if they ignored all the simple safety precautions which can be taken to reduce that further. These doses are well known not to cause any significant increase in cancer risk - long term or not.

      And your suggestion of a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus being required is still rather unlikely. Since it appears none of the reactors have actually melted down or suffered a substantial failure in containment in the immediate vicinity of the rods themselves, it's quite likely that they'll be able to take them through a more or less normal shutdown and decommissioning once proper cooling is restored, and the storage implications will be no more serious than if they reached their natural end-of-life. Indeed, if they weren't already near or past their expected end-of-life, they could probably be fairly readily repaired, refuelled, and set running again within a relatively short timeframe. (Indeed, there's talk that this is being considered for Reactors 4 through 6, although that may turn out to not be politically viable).

      I'm not denying it's a serious issue - but in the perspective of tens of thousands dead, and many times more homeless and short on food and other supplies, it really shouldn't be dominating headlines in this way.

    3. Re:Misleading summary by subreality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since it appears none of the reactors have actually melted down or suffered a substantial failure in containment in the immediate vicinity of the rods themselves, it's quite likely that they'll be able to take them through a more or less normal shutdown and decommissioning once proper cooling is restored ...

      Actually, the high I-131 and Cs-137 levels pretty well indicate that at least a partial meltdown has occurred. We'll only know for sure once we're able to crack them open and see what's inside, but my money's on it looking a lot like the TMI leftovers. With a mess of corium casserole inside, they're not going to just pop the lid off and pull the fuel bundles like any other shutdown. It'll be years before they peek inside, and years more before they've finished scraping the slag out. That's much better than Chernobyl where angry flaming core got spooed everywhere, but it's hardly a "normal" decommissioning.

    4. Re:Misleading summary by Glock27 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      radiation kills long term (unless it's a massive dose)

      That is commonly accepted thinking, but is apparently incorrect.

      The tens of thousands more distant from Ground Zero, and who received lower exposures to radiation, did not die in droves. To the contrary, and surprisingly, they outlived their counterparts in the general population who received no exposure to radiation from the blasts.

      These findings come from the Atomic Bomb Disease Institute of the Nagasaki University School of Medicine, which has been analyzing the medical records of survivors continuously since 1968.

      Quotes are from Lawrence Solomon: Japan’s radioactive fallout could have silver lining.

      Sometimes reality is surprising.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    5. Re:Misleading summary by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If by "high" doses you mean "doses that may, perhaps, increase your lifetime risk of getting cancer by a single-digit percentage" then yes.

      I'm not saying this is ignorable, or not serious. I'm saying that this far, it seems likely that the harm to human health from the nukes, will be a tiny fraction of the damages resulting from the earthquake and tsunami.

      i.e. if there where zero nuclear powerplants in the affected area, the number of dead and seriously injured people would've been essentially identical.

      Japan has suffered a huge catastrophy. Nuclear powerplants has this far gotten a huge fraction of the attention, while actually causing a miniscule fraction of the deaths and injuries. This *may* change if we get a larger release of radioactive substances, offcourse.

    6. Re:Misleading summary by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm saying that this far, it seems likely that the harm to human health from the nukes, will be a tiny fraction of the damages resulting from the earthquake and tsunami.

      I suspect more people are going to wind up getting cancer and dying from smoke inhalation from all the gas, wood, and coal heaters they're using due to the rolling blackouts, than from radiation from this accident. In other words, the loss of electrical generating capacity due to the Fukushima Daiichi plant being offline is probably going to kill more people than the radiation it emits. But death by radiation is more exotic and makes a better story than death by long-term smoke inhalation, so the media splashes it all over their headlines.

      Nuclear powerplants has this far gotten a huge fraction of the attention, while actually causing a miniscule fraction of the deaths and injuries. This *may* change if we get a larger release of radioactive substances, offcourse.

      Statistically, if you compare the safety of each power source in terms of deaths per TWh generated, this accident would have to kill something like 10,000 people in order for nuclear to lose its title as safest power generation technology (wind is currently second safest - yes, wind power has killed more people Watt-hour for Watt-hour than nuclear). This obsession people have with worst case scenarios is skewing their judgment into making the wrong decision on how safe the technology is. Just like how plane crashes make people think planes are more dangerous than they really are, or how big lottery prizes make people think it's worth buying a ticket when it really isn't.

  3. But it seems like it has been contained now by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Like all other moments in life, there is a Simpsons quote that sums it up:

    "turning a possible Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island"

  4. Interview with Chernobyl cleanup director by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Speaking of Chernobyl, below is and interview with a former director of the Soviet Spetsatom agency handling the Chernobyl case. He has plenty of published papers out there and apparently now teaches and advises on nuclear safety in Vienna. In the interview he gives four scenarios for the Japanese reactors... I wonder what the verdict is not a week later.

    Full translated interview:

    17/03/2011 Rafael Poch, Berlin Correspondent

    Andreyev: "In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies" "The most dangerous reactor in Fukushima is 3, because it uses a fuel of uranium and plutonium," said Yuli

    He spent five years at Chernobyl. Spetsatom was deputy director of the anti-Soviet body nuclear accidents and knows very well how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) works.

    Yuri Andreyev (1938) is one of the most knowledgeable in this area. To Fukushima includes four scenarios of varying severity, from mild to very severe.

    "In Fukushima, the most dangerous reactor is three, because it uses MOX fuel more plutonium uranium that France is being used experimentally in two Japanese plants," says this expert.

    In 1991 everything fell apart in Moscow. The salary of deputy minister of atomic energy, the position he was offered Andreyev, not enough for anything. The Academy of Sciences of Austria was invited to lecture and eventually settled in Vienna as adviser to the minister of environment, universities and the IAEA itself.

    Chernoby is still surrounded by lies, says. The accident was not the responsibility of plant operators, as stated, but a clear design flaw in the RBMK reactors result of cost savings. Proper design of those Soviet reactors required a large amount of zirconium, a rare metal, and a maze of pipes, special techniques for welding of zirconium, stainless steel and huge amounts of concrete. It was a fortune, so they decided to save money, said Andreyev.

    One of the resources of savings was to feed the reactor with relatively low enriched uranium, since uranium enrichment is a complicated and expensive. This increased the risks and was contrary to the rules of safety, but supervision in the USSR nuclear part of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Something similar is happening today with the IAEA, as the UN agency "depends on the nuclear industry," said Andreyev, under which lies and secrets of Chernobyl are now fully present in Fukushima.

    Security, money, irresponsibility

    "Those who design nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. The accident at Three Mile Island is the perfect example. After the accident was to improve security in a convincing way to avoid repetition of the accident both plants more expensive, they lost all meaning. For thirty years in America was not built a single reactor. Chernobyl was all very complicated but also had to do with economics. Academician Rumyantsev showed that we had to close all RBMK reactors. Simply ignored. There are always people interested in hiding something ... "

    What are they hiding?

    They lend themselves to compromise on security in exchange for selfish considerations. In the USSR for the cost of uranium enrichment in Japan simply for money. The location of central Japan, near the sea is the cheapest. Emergency generators are not buried and, of course, were flooded instantly .... Behind all this there is corruption. I have no proof, but will not take long to appear. How can I design a nuclear power plant in an area of ââhigh seismic risk, near the ocean, with emergency generators at the surface?. Wave arrived and everything was out of service. There is no error, this is a crime.

    What problems do you see wi

  5. Re:Banana? by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And the "something" that just doesn't work is Slashdot fact-checking.

  6. Bottled water and meltdown by no+known+priors · · Score: 5, Informative

    Reporting live from Tokyo (well, just on the outskirts, but def. part of the greater Tokyo area):
    People here have bought up massive amounts of bottled water, though apparently the level of radioactive iodine has fallen below the maximum legal limit for infants (which is one third for that of adults). Milk is also in short supply. Two days ago, two supermarkets near me had no milk, or plain bottled water. (Haven't looked since then.)

    On the subject of meltdowns, there is no "official" meaning to the term. But, I would say that at least a couple of the reactors have "melted down" (I haven't really been paying attention to the news, so I don't know if any of the others have or not). Anyway, fun facts, the "precautionary" safe limit of 80 KM set by the US government (and then the Australian government), for folks, was apparently worth setting. At least one village outside the 30 KM radius has had really high levels of radioactive iodine get into the water.

    Me, I'm staying in Tokyo until things get really bad. But, I imagine, at least a couple of million of the other residents would also want to leave at that time too. So...

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. The maximum is 120 characters.
  7. Re:Fukushima by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DO dismiss out of hand comparisons of Fukushima with Chernobyl. Because they're completely different events, at differently designed nuclear power plants, with a completely different level of response from the local authorities. Even in the absolute worst case scenario, Fukushima will never be anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl was in terms of deaths, long term damage to the environment or cost & duration of cleanup.

  8. Re:Sensational! by osu-neko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA:

    The amounts being released, he says, are "entirely consistent" with the relatively low amounts of caesium and iodine being measured in soil, plants and water in Japan, because so much has blown out to sea. The amounts crossing the Pacific to places like Sacramento are vanishingly small – they were detected there because the CTBT network is designed to sniff out the tiniest traces.

    "Relatively low amounts" in Japan. "Vanishingly small" amounts elsewhere. Yeah, they're really sensationally hyping this one up. /sarcasm

    I don't doubt the claim, I do doubt the presentation. Have some respect.

    So you think the claim is true, but it should not have been presented? Reporting simple facts now is sensationalism? They should have had enough respect to simply not report it? (No doubt you'll claim they could have been presented in a less sensational manner, which is utterly ridiculous considering, but whatever. Clearly any reporting of these facts at all would be considered sensationalist by you.)

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  9. Re:Sensational! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article uses scientific notation to give the radiation release in becquerels.

    It is impossible to be sensationalist when using scientific notation!

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  10. Habemus papam by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We have a Pope" - sorry, couldn't resist.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  11. Re:Fukushima by orangedan · · Score: 4, Informative

    As for the levels in the water, they appear to have gone done quite quickly . Personally, I trust these guys because they give strict facts and no speculation. I have yet to see any reports of Hong Kong vegetables, but I admit I'm too lazy to google. That said, my (again, admittedly) knee-jerk reaction is to point out all the sketchy stuff in the past with China and other food products and ask if it might not be something else.

    Things are slowly getting better. It wasn't the best two weeks, but life in Japan goes on as normal. That said, I'm down in Kyoto, which is pretty far from it all.

  12. Re:Fukushima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DO NOT discount reports of contamination. DO NOT dismiss out of hand comparisons of Fukushima with Chernobyl.

    I can't find a way to sugar coat that. Sorry.

    The scary contamination in Tokyo is between 0.3% and 1.5% of the radioactive exposure you get from smoking one cigarette. Scary, isn't it?

  13. Re:Chernobyl: wild animals and rapid evolution by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could you describe the difference between evolution caused by increased radiation and evolution caused by what ever else? Evolution is just changes and nothing more. Stuff happens and sometimes it turns out to be something that changes things.

    No, evolution is not just changes. Evolution is the effect of long term adaptation of a population to the environment through the combined effects of mutation, natural selection and reproduction. Mere mutation alone doesn't give you evolution.

    The speed of evolution is not directly proportional to the mutation rate. If the mutation rate is too high, beneficial mutations are quickly swamped in harmful mutations, and unable to contribute to an increased chance of reproduction. What does speed up evolution is a change in environment. I bet Chernobyl will result in organisms in the area being more resistant to radiation and radioactive pollution.

  14. Re:Sensational! by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Spending a year close to Fukushima itself will have ZERO observable health effects."

    Go for it. I'm sure they could use your assistance there.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  15. Re:Sensational! by georgesdev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I still have some liquid soap left from last year's flu hysteria.
    And some air masks too. Who wants some?
    There was also a hysteria for the mad cow disease, but my wife did not buy anything, we merely rode the car through pools of soapy water back then (near farms)
    The problem when the media says apocalypse is coming once a year, and we're still there the next year is that we pay less attention the next time.

  16. Re:Sensational! by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both Iodine and Cesium are only dangerous if you ingest significant quantities of them. Additionally they have halflives measured in hours

    No.

    I-131 8 days.
    Cs-137 30.2 years.

    The problem at Chernobyl was release of Uranium and Plutonium in clouds, which then spread around the site, and irradiated everything.

    In the long term the problem was the Cs-137.

    Does it really need to be said that the Japanese lost control of exactly 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000% of their nuclear fuel.

    If exposure of the rods and burning off of radioactive isotopes is zero loss of control, then stabbing someone is zero loss of blood unless they die.

    Wanna bet the author of this story is a "green scientist" ?

    The only thing I'd bet is that you're thoroughly annoyed that an out-of-date power plant has demonstrated that humans need to try much harder when deploying nuclear power. You're deliberately polarising it as greens vs nuclear advocates when it's really the desire for safe nuclear power vs the desire for maximising profit at inappropriate risk.

  17. Re:Braindamage? by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are comparing a per-day value from Fukushima to a 10-day value from Chernobyl, that's why there's a factor of 10 difference, and they have taken it into account.

  18. Re:Sensational! by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Of course, that requires significant ingestion of such iodine in the first place, which most typically comes with significantly contaminated water."

    Milk.
    Chernobyl results showed that cows eating the contaminated grass had almost all the radioactive iodine in the milk and children who drank that milk got sick.
    Apparently 90% of the children thyroid cancers could have been prevented if the government had issued a warning not to drink milk.

  19. Re:Sensational! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Funny

    you don't want to see any Slashdot story about it that's not a glowing endorsement

    There's enough glowing endorsements for nuclear power around Fukushima already.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  20. Re:Sensational! by yes_really · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder how far it will go though... Chernobyl actually really "exploded" and thus in contrast to what the officials say there is only very little radioactive material within the chernobyl sarcophagus (they say there is 97% left inside, but you can walk inside with little protection, check youtube - there are many videos of the inner sanctum of the sarcophagus ... there is only little left. the rest is spread around the ukraine, russia and europe mostly). Most of the material was pushed into the air when it exploded. As there are no real (trustable) sources in terms of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe it wouldn't suprise me if there is a complete melt down of No. 3 and no public information available on the real scale of the disaster (e.g. plutonium 235, its byproducts and other radioactive material and spreading across continents and oceans).

  21. Re:Sensational! by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's a documentary on the scientists trying to find the radioactive fuel / core inside the chernobyl structure on google video. They had to use robots to scout ahead because some of the rooms had pockets of radiation that could emit a lethal dose in seconds. One difference between Chernobyl and the Japanese reactors is that Chernobyl wasn't contained. Even if the Japanese reactors melt down, it's very likely that the melting cores will be captured in the containment structures built beneath them. As long as the containment holds then you won't be seeing plutonium anywhere except where it's supposed to be.

  22. Re:Sensational! by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 5, Funny

    You rang?

    --
    SSC
  23. Warning! Prospective alert. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

    Death toll from Earthquake and tsunami 10,000+
    Death toll from the reactor accident so far 0.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Warning! Prospective alert. by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nuclear disasters are disasters in slow motion. Apart from initial explosions and the like, there's no good reason any sizeable number of people in an informed populace has to die because there's plenty of time to react. That doesn't mean you can ignore them or that they don't cause tens or hundreds of billion dollars in damages. You have to put forth heroic efforts to try to stop a catastrophe from becoming a megacatastrophe. You have to order the evacuations. You have to destroy produce and milk. You have to leave areas closed off to settlement and larger areas to agriculture. You have to find new water supplies. You have to seal off any sources of further radiation leakage, whatever the cost. And so on, all depending on the scale of the accident.

      Everyone focuses on deaths with nuclear accidents, but apart from the sudden explosion/etc deaths and the deaths caused by a poor response to the disaster, nobody has to die in even a major nuclear accident. They're just really freaking expensive to deal with, in terms of containment, in terms of ruined property, and in terms of protracted economic damages.

      --
      Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
  24. Re:Sensational! by rjstanford · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And those thyroid cancers - while exceedingly unpleasant - killed about 40 people.

    Nuclear is not 100% safe. Nothing is. It does happen to be about 4,000 times as safe as Coal though, measured in terms of human deaths per megawatt generated.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  25. Re:Sensational! by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The half-life of I-131 is 8 days, and effectively all of the volitiles have burned off at this point. Early this week, levels in Tokyo briefly reach levels where a baby in arms shouldn't be drinking (formulae made with) tap water - but it was only about twice safe levels for a baby, and no risk at all for those over 40. In a week that problem will have solved itself natually.

    I'm sure there someone, somewhere who somehow didn't hear the warnings and a baby now has a slightly elevated risk of thyroid cancer. That's not a good thing, but it's unfair and sensationalist to compare that to Chernobyl. As my friend in Japan wrote

    For us, we think (a) these amounts shouldn't matter and (b) our activated carbon filtration systems will take care of this, but carefully consumed wine and beer this evening just to be safe

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  26. Re:Sensational! by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quite true. Only the volatiles (Cs-137, I-131, etc) make it any significant distance from a nuclear disaster. The non-volatile elements end up attached to or as part of larger particulate matter and are generally deposited within 100km of the accident -- aka, significant amounts wouldn't even make it to Tokyo if the winds at the time of release were pointing straight at it.

    A lack of those means it's less likely Fukushima will involve a permanent exclusion zone around it, but the overall health effects for regions beyond will be similar to that for Chernobyl after adjusting for prevailing wind direction.

    Note that this accident isn't even close to over. There's several times as much nuclear decay waste products at Fukushima #1 as there were at Chernobyl, only a small fraction of those have been released into the environment so far, and the disaster is still clearly ongoing. There will almost certainly be more volatiles released by Fukushima than Chernobyl when this is done. The question is how kind will the winds be over the coming months and whether there will be even more "oh noes".

    --
    Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
  27. Re:Sensational! by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound
    He pulls the spitting high-tension wires down...

    You know, I once came up with the notion that if you wanted an *incredibly* loud speaker, and had a large budget, you could encode music into detonating det cord by varying its radius and thus the force of its pressure wave. Depending on how thin you can make the cord, a normal length song would take a couple dozen to a couple hundred tonnes of explosives (not cheap), but you would have the volume to broadcast across a huge area.

    I was then thinking of, "What song would be best to play to people out of the blue, no warning, as part of a crazy art project?" And then it hit me: Godzilla by Blue Oyster Cult. In Tokyo Bay. As you inflate a Godzilla parade float in the water with helium, causing it to rise up and out of the water head-first (ultimately releasing it to float away over the town).

    --
    Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?
  28. Re:Sensational! by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He's correct on everything else though

    No, he's not. I went one step further and followed his link. Proof by Ghost Reference. It does not say what he claims it does.

    The main reason why elements with low half lives are dangerous is precisely *because* they have low half lives. U-238 is all over the bloody planet, but with a half life similar to the age of the planet, it poses little threat. Iodine poses the primary threat initially after a nuclear accident, followed by cesium and strontium over time. The Chernobyl exclusion zone may be opened for development and agriculture again up once the cesium and strontium decay sufficiently.

    What sort of ridiculous-looking hat are you pulling your figures from, like your "500m higher" one? Fukushima City's radiation levels are ~100 times their normal background level -- and they're 30km *west* (against the prevailing winds) of the reactor. Tokyo today is at 4x their normal background, and they're *150km* away and tangential to the prevailing winds. And the accident is still ongoing, and will be for quite a while. And we're talking about external radiation, not inhaled/ingested particulate, which is orders of magnitude worse for the body than radiation from external sources (like most background radiation, like the radiation from X-rays, like the radiation from flying, etc).

    Could you please put down the nuclear power pom poms for just a minute and enter the real world where this is a serious disaster having a serious effect on a first-world country?

    --
    Did he just go crazy and fall asleep?