Slashdot Mirror
Radioactive Water Found In Two Reactor Buildings
RedEaredSlider writes "Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said it detected several kinds of radioactive material in the water on the floor of reactor buildings at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The isotopes found in the water were cobalt-76, technetium-99, silver-108, iodine-131, iodine-134, four isotopes of cesium, barium-140 and lanthanum-140. All have half-lives measured in hours or days, with the exception of cesium-137."
You can keep your sieverts. I prefer to measure radiation by the level of socially-isolating, mutated superpowers that it produces. Are any of the plant workers brooding yet, or developing secret identities, or lamenting how society has shunned them, or experiencing montage sequences where they learn how to use their new powers?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This does not have a half life in days, but years
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/28/3-types-of-plutonium-detected-at-japans-fukushima-daiichi-plant/
This is extremely bad
Huh. So you say they dumped water all over the radioactive disaster with helicopters, firetrucks, a big concrete pump truck, and now the basement of the reactor is filled with radioactive water?
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Let's see - they've been pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of seawater into the spent fuel pools for over a week now. I would take a wild guess and predict that, yes, there will be some radioactive water lying around.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Technetium-99 has a half-life of over 200k years. Of course, it's still days, just a lot of them.
U+F8FF
They said we're all gonna dieeeeee!!!!!
But apparently I find out how, after these commercials... damnit! Now I gotta hang around this channel all day!
I didn't know about the Lanthanum-140 contamination.... thanks Slashdot.
that Cesium 137 wasn't found in the water.
Today, featuring Panama City Burger King Chimpout.
I'm fine with nuclear power. I'm not fine with nuclear power plants being run by greedy assholes that put the profit margin above the safety margin. We have a few reactors here in the U.S. that are obviously being ran "on the cheap", and frankly those companies should be ran out of town, and taken over by people that put the public safety first.
One or more of those reactor buildings contains a reactor.
This is all just a minor accident that could have been avoided if it weren't for the hippies who won't let us build completely safe reactors to replace the existing completely safe reactors. Right? RIGHT?
IMHO the people who keep playing this down should go to Japan, get in one of those fancy radiation worker suits and CLEAN UP THIS HICCUP WITH THEIR OWN TWO HANDS, FFS.
Too many TKs if you ask me...
I hope they don't find any Cobalt Thorium G!
The photo in the story comes with this caption: Aerial view shows white smoke billowing from a window in the No. 2 reactor building at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 23. The Japanese unclear safety agency, NISA, said radioactive contaminants were found in water pooling on the floor of the turbine building. Unclear safety indeed!
Cobalt-76 ? really? It seems to me that they should publish this in a peer-reviewed journal as it seems they have found a new Isotope.
At least according to these two nuclid charts cobalt-76 is unknown.
As someone who has an 8 year old nephew within 100k of the plant I find trace elements of Plutonium disturbing to say the least. This *may* mean that the MOX has been partially burned/vaporized, no? That would be bad. I'm not here to editorialize for or against industrial nuclear power, I actually think nuclear is here to stay for a while, but the shills constantly repeating "What is newsworthy is that the containment units withstood a 9.0 quake which is many orders of magnitude greater than the design specified." aren't doing your cause any good. TEPCO was warned, did cost/risk analysis, made their call and lost. What is newsworthy is that human error and/or corruption and/or cost cutting can undermine sound engineering. How does that fit into the typical slashdot one handed libertarian wank fest?
what happened at fukushima might not be as horrible as the media portrays. however, you have to understand, when the general public sees this kind of accident and some techie starts scoffing and arrogantly laughing and proclaiming how insignicant this accident is THEY STOP LISTENING TO YOU
there is an educated person on a given subject matter, and an uneducated person. what does it take to turn the uneducated person educated? well, not the attitude you see on display in the post above
when the educated person acts like an arrogant ass, the uneducated people doesn't learn anything except that you have an ego problem. they immediately tune you out, and most importantly, they decide, without your input, that nuclear power is too dangerous and insist to their politicians that we don't use it. because no one educated them. they just scoffed at them
do you want nuclear power to be widely adopted? then impassionately and concisely summarize why things might not be as bas they seem to be to the average person. when they ask a stupid question, or display colossal ignorance on a subject matter, smile and educate them simply and succinctly. or laugh at them. and see nuclear power get mothballed everywhere
frankly, ego problems like on display in the comment board above are more irresponsible than an uneducated public. because they show that the educated are more interested in proclaiming their "superiority" (eg, their ego problems) than actually informing people
congratulations jackass: your attitude helps kill nuclear power
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For the technetium.
The isotopes in question all have very short half lives. If they're being found in quantity two weeks after the reactors were shut down, it means that somewhere in the plant there is an uncontrolled nuclear reaction going on. To put it mildly that is extremely bad. If the plant becomes to radioactive for either humans or robots to work there, the other reactors are going to melt down and the spent fuel pools are going to boil off and burn. That is approaching a very large value of bad, and I wouldn't want to be in Tokyo if it happens.
which has a half-life of 30 years.
it's nice to see people not only get upset about something once in a while, but to actually vote against it as well. The greens had double digit gains here in German elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg_state_election,_2011
Let's see - they've been pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of seawater into the spent fuel pools for over a week now. I would take a wild guess and predict that, yes, there will be some radioactive water lying around.
The point of the water was that it would be boiled off as it served its purpose of controlling the overheated fuel. It was not supposed to flood the basements, tunnels and threaten to carry radioactive material into the sea. As such, the presence of large volumes of contaminated water suggests that the emergency response was that much more flawed, and the chances that this situation will turn out to be no big deal are that much smaller.
Well, /. does the headlines and summary wrong as usual. The most importation fact isn't even mentioned, the water contains radiation which only source could be the core of the nuclear plant, which means - the inner containment is broken . . . that is the HEADLINE!
We're missing the real problem here. If these test results are correct, (and there's some question about that) then there is still a critical reaction going on intermittently. The reactors's scrammed nearly two weeks ago and therefore couldn't be putting out something with a half life of days or hours unless fission had restarted. That would be a Very Bad Thing.
That's not a very well informed argument, although your target selection is not too bad.
The unwashed masses stop listening because they want to be scared. They want to be scared because anyone whom doesn't watch garbage like the mainstream media produces... does not watch that garbage.
You know how much of a pain in the ass it is to sit next to the guy at the magic show who spends all his time telling everyone around him how its all fake and I bet I know how it works? Or the guy at the horror movie whom feels the need to tell everyone around him how its all fake and none of it is real? What a PITA for the folks whom want to be entertained.
Same way with the TV news viewers. They literally don't want the truth, so stop trying to tell them. They want to be scared. If you somehow convince them not to be scared about this thing, they'll be pissed that you've "ruined the fun" as they wait for the next scary story.
With a memory best measured in days or weeks, I don't think the opinion of the general unwashed masses really matters for nuclear power, at all.
Now on /. its OK to tell the truth about whats going on. Some of us actually want to know. But keep the non-fiction here and the fiction out there on the TV news where it belongs.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Now thats scary! It isn't even on my chart of the nuclides! I wonder what its half life is. Who wrote this article anyway?
>>> congratulations jackass: your attitude helps kill nuclear power
And until I read the above I thought nuclear power and its radiation is killing people.
I can't help but be amused that your post berating someone's attitude closes with "congratulations jackass"...
The real litigious bastards...
Water in containment
please don't heat
The door is locked
just you and me.
Can I take you to a temperature
that melts glass sweet
You can watch yourself
while you are eating me.
Water in containment
I just can't stop it,
Every Saturday you see me
furiously mopping.
Find no interest in the
pipes and welds
Just a thousand isotopes
in my own sweet self...
Water in containment
You're the water in containment
You're my water in containment
You're my water in containment...
Water in containment
When I first saw this last week, I was weeping in silence the whole day through.
" Nuclear Ginza" - Japanese 25 min documentary (english narration & subtitles) from 1995 on poor ignorant people working to maintain Japan's reactors. Warning: cannot be unseen.
i pointed out people with ego problems more interested at scoffing at the uneducated than educating them, and this yahoo replies by being exactly the sort of archetypical arrogant jackass i am talking about:
"The unwashed masses stop listening because they want to be scared."
oh, really? congratulations, you have an ego problem
being uneducated on nuclear power is not uncommon, it is normal. being ready and interested in being educated is not uncommon, it is normal. unfortunately, techies with ego problems, more interested in ridiculing and denigrating the common man, is also not uncommon, and i guess, "normal"
congratulations, you are a bigger part of the problem than the uneducated. because your attitude is caustic, wrong, and serves your stunted ego more than it serves the common good
i see someone with an attitude like yours, and i think less of you than i think of a scared uneducated person
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you don't cure techie jackasses of a bad attitude with a patient and courteous demeanour. they are blinded by smug self-satisfaction. you need to smack them in the face until they pay some fucking attention
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The best reports on reactor status are at Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, which publishes a status table every day. This is addressed to people in the industry. They just list the facts, without explanation.
The good news for March 28 is that Unit 3's containment is now listed as "undamaged" instead of "possibly damaged". Unit 2 is listed as "damaged and leakage suspected", and that's now the most worrisome unit.
There's finally a fresh water supply for cooling. That's a big relief. Sea water cooling in a boil-off situation leaves tons of salt behind, and there was a real worry that the seawater cooling would stop working once too much salt accumulated. Fresh water cooling can continue indefinitely. It's not clear where the water is coming from. Hopefully they have a water line to a reliable source by now, and aren't just bringing in tanker trucks.
The cores in units 1,2, and 3 still have exposed fuel rods. Until water injection into the core is working again, the reactor can't be brought to cold shutdown. Remember, the reactor vessel is pressurized and contains a mixture of water and steam. Injecting water into a boiler is inherently difficult. Injecting water into a damaged boiler in a ruined structure in a highly radioactive area is very tough.
The spent fuel pool situation on reactors 3 and 4 is marginally under control. Seawater spray continues, but if they have to keep putting water in, the situation is still bad.
They're weeks from a stable emergency shutdown.
That's just the beginning. The situation isn't safe until there are again redundant closed loop cooling systems working. The current cooling hacks dump radioactive water into the ocean.
Then comes decommissioning. The spent fuel pools have to be cooled for three years or so, and then the fuel rods transferred from the wrecked buildings to dry casks. It will probably be necessary to build another containment building around unit 2, at least. Units 1,2, and 3 are all too damaged to ever de-fuel normally. It's not clear what will be done there. Unit 4 wasn't fueled, but it had a hydrogen explosion while cooling was lost, and will probably never be restarted. Units 5 and 6 can potentially be restarted, but it's doubtful that they will be.
Sincere question for the sensationalist media: Show us one person who shows any sign of actual harm from this nuclear incident. Now stand him next to any of the many people harmed by the tsunami.
what happened at fukushima might not be as horrible as the media portrays. however, you have to understand, when the general public sees this kind of accident and some techie starts scoffing and arrogantly laughing and proclaiming how insignicant this accident is THEY STOP LISTENING TO YOU
THEY WEREN'T LISTENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sometimes you only can get people to listen to you by disagreeing "arrogantly".
Hear that everyone there's going to be silver for the taking in the basements of those reactors in a few hours/days. Get your pans and get in there poor uneducated people and get rich! Feel free to clean up the place while you're down there.
Would that work on you, or are you a dyed-in-the-wool freetard no matter what sort of evidence comes to bear?
you don't understand human psychology
here's a guide to help you get started as to how and why you are so out of touch with the subject matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/weekinreview/27johnson.html
human psychology, smug techies. learn it, or be irrelevant
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the issue is techies that do not respect the common man. instead of educating them, they laugh at them
for me, this means they have ceased to deserve my respect in return. my lack of respect is an effect of their lack of respect
it's like equating the robber shooting his gun with the home owner shooting back. they are both shooting guns, but one is doing it for good reason, in response, the other bad reasons, in aggression
my lack of respect is a response, for good reason. all you see is lack of respect, and not reason, nor context
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are going to have to smack them quite a bit harder.
And then only for my amusement, as they are incapable of understanding your point here. My dog gets it, they don't and won't.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
... to get past their gagging orders !
...this means they have ceased to deserve my respect in return. my lack of respect is an effect of their lack of respect...my lack of respect is a response, for good reason. all you see is lack of respect, and not reason, nor context
For the most part, I agree with your assessment of the techie-ego problems that are unfortunately common here on /. but may I offer something to think about? There is a man named Danny Silk who teaches about honor and respect in a way that is somewhat unintuitive. While I am still a long, long ways from reaching the goal he advocates, I am trying to get there. In a nutshell, his attitude towards the attitudes of others is this: "I will not let your character defects control me." In other words, he doesn't treat people with respect if and only if they deserve it; he treats everyone with respect, whether they deserve it or not. So while I tend to think you are correct to be frustrated with the self-righteous techie who throws around terms like "unwashed masses" while scoffing and laughing at those who do not share his viewpoint on subjects like nuclear power, I have a bit of a philosophical disagreement with scorning those who scorn others. That just seems...I don't know...borderline hypocritical. <shrug>
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
if you understand something about the psychology of people's attentions, then you can and should begin to understand how it is permanent, intractable, and just an unchanging facet of human nature. now what? laugh at it? scoff at it? get depressed? use it to tell yourself how superior you are?
analogy: car rides are far more dangerous than airplane flights. but the average person perceives the opposite. the psychological reason is the aspect of control, or the illusion of it. in an airplane, you are handing control of your life over to a pilot. a dedicated trained seasoned pilot with many safety and security protocols, but you are handing over control nonetheless. in a car, you have your hands on the steering wheel: you are in control. but this is an illusion, because you are on a road with hundreds of other people also driving, and texting, and applying makeup, and drunk, and they have power over your life by their actions behind the steering wheel. it doesn't matter how good a driver you are if one of the hundreds of assholes around you crosses over the yellow line
psychologically, it is about what you can perceive as finite and concrete (a tsunami) versus what you cannot perceive as limitless and never-ending (nuclear decay and radiation). perception, and control: more important to human psychology than other risk factors
so if you emphasize to someone what they can perceive, and what they can control, about nuclear radiation, you demystify it, you make it concrete, you make it within their grasp. and thus you reduce the fear and panic and hysteria
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
however, the essence of 1. respecting someone, regardless of their poor character hygiene, versus 2. only giving respect in a reciprocal arrangement, is that strategy #1 results in you passing through their life with no effect on them at all (and them no effect on you), while #2 has the possibility of educating them as to why they actually need to respect people. with the potential negative effect that since, yes, you are getting dirty in the mud with them, you may lose focus of who really is having an effect on whom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> Sometimes you only can get people to listen to you by disagreeing "arrogantly".
That might help, but what would really help is if more of the people who DO know the basics of the science behind this problem would stop stirring the panic. Stay calm, tell anyone who asks the truth and lead by example. But no, people who know better are out spreading FUD for the most base of political motives. Federation of Concerned (troll) Scientists anyone? They certainly know better but can't keep their goddamned faces off the boob tube spreading DOOM! The risk to North America from pretty much anything that happens in Japan is so close to zero it isn't worth discussing. The risk to HI is almost as low. Wouldn't know that from watching CNN.
Democrat delenda est
Oh, sure, all those radioactive isotopes sound frightening, but they're nothing compared to the real threat that's been found. Those reactor buildings are full of dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO). This nasty chemical kills more people every year than all radiation sources combined. Just in the past few weeks in the area around the Fukushima power plant, a massive spill of DHMO killed thousands of people.
The news media is hyping up some minor radioactivity but they're ignoring the true threat. I hope they start talking about DHMO soon.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
when the general public sees this kind of accident and some techie starts scoffing and arrogantly laughing and proclaiming how insignicant this accident is THEY STOP LISTENING TO YOU
Here's what I propose, we gather everyone against nuclear power in the east part of every country and have them build massive windmill parks and solar arrays. Everyone else gets to live in the west part of every country and enjoys nuclear power. That way, we don't have to listen to eachother, can scoff at technology as much as we want arrogantly laughing our way to mutation while our media overdramatizes death by windmill and sunburn.
what does it take to turn the uneducated person educated? well, not the attitude you see on display in the post above
In other news, sarcasm declared illegal by people without a sense of humor. Parliament announces it will deal with irony and satire soon.
when the educated person acts like an arrogant ass, the uneducated people doesn't learn anything
You do realize that this is slashdot, right? Most of us have a basic understanding of physics, and although few of us are nuclear scientists, most of us grasp what the term half-life is and don't start yawning the moment people explain this concept. It's nuclear physics for crying out loud. It's complicated and to understand it to a bare minimum you need to at least have a grasp of physics, something that eludes quite a lot of people.
Most people don't know how their car works. They don't care. They don't WANT to know. If tomorrow the news says "Mercedes cars are more accident prone due to the engine being of German design" the first thing that a mechanic is going to do is going to employ the magical power of sarcasm with his peers and crack a fucking joke. You can be damn sure that some people will believe a statement like that though, after all those Germans aren't to be trusted after all. Better to play it safe. People aren't interested in knowing how nuclear physics works. They see smoke, explosions, and hear about (brace for the magical word) radioactivity. They don't know about background radiation, nor do they care. They don't WANT to be enlightened on this subject that takes most people years to understand. Fuck the fact that there's a deathcount in the tens of thousands from mother nature tossing and turning a bit in her sleep, we've got explosions on the screen.
The media sensationalizes this stuff because it sells. If the media wanted to give a fair and balanced view on things they'd talk to a nuclear physicist. They did that on the news here on the second day. Boy, was that boring. I mean, this guy was talking about half-lives, cesium, iodine, cooling, disaster plans, ... Where are the goddamn explosions? Where is the fancy chart with red and brown indicating how much people are going to glow in the dark? You know, the chart with that symbol that means nukular. It's no wonder they stopped asking that guy for info. Who cares about all that sciency stuff, we wanna hear more about the end of the world.
your attitude helps kill nuclear power
The lack of people to understand the very basics of physics is killing nuclear power. The lack of curiosity about why and how things work, and the desire to be spoonfed everything by the magic talking box which operates on electricity generated by little hamsters running on fucking wheels is more of a problem than one geek being sarcastic to another.
Isaac Newton is spinning in his grave right now, and there are very few people who can measure the force needed to get Sir Newton spinning in the unit that was named after him. 200 years from now, uneducated people will look at Westminster Abbey and claim that it is the spinning of Sir Isaac Newton that makes the world revolve around the sun.
Look where the fuck you are and grow a sense of humor.
I am soo tired of the sensationalized stories surrounding Japan's "nuclear crisis." .... the containment units withstood a 9.0 quake which is many orders of magnitude greater than the design specified.
I am soo tired of sensationalized math. The reactor was designed for an 8.2 earthquake, and withstood (for the most part) a 9.0 earthquake. That isn't "many orders of magnitude" greater, that's about 6.3 times. You need to look up what "orders of magnitude" actually means -- and quit sensationalizing your math.
One simple rule for its versus it's
I know this will go over like a brick on slashdot, but a guy by the name of Jesus Christ had a remarkably similar philosophy a few years earlier.
AJ Henderson
This is because he is in fact the one with the ego problem, and it is why he's trying to pass it along to the parent posts in the first place. vlm just has a mental issue, nothing to see here, move along.
As element-op pointed out. I think your frustration is justified, and I understand and agree with it, but as a techie type myself, I can tell you that your approach to trying to deal with it will make them scoff you off just as surely as the people they do it to scoff them off. I'm not saying there isn't sometimes a time in a debate to call someone out, but there is a difference between direct insult and meaningful provocation to shake someone and provocation must be used very carefully to avoid simply shutting an argument down without any impact.
AJ Henderson
That's why I didn't mention this earlier, but Danny Silk is one of the pastors at a seriously cool church in California :)
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
OK, your amazing god-like powers tell you what won't work, so howsabout an example of what will work, then say why.
I suppose I could start counting a reporter's breaths reminding hiom that each is one closer to his last than the one before as the free radicals and superoxides from oxygen metabolism rip his DNA to shreds molecule by molecule.
when the general public sees this kind of accident and some techie starts scoffing and arrogantly laughing and proclaiming how insignicant this accident is THEY STOP LISTENING TO YOU
You mean like Jack Spencer, the Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies?
You mean after hosing down some nuclear reactors with seawater and several explosions after a 9.0 earthquake and 6 meter tsunami, there is some radioactive water in the basement? Did someone just walk out of their cave today?
Yes they may not have been listening in the first place, but disagreeing "arrogantly" makes them start listening even less often.
AJ Henderson
When the trouble first started. America was going to send over some coolant and everythign was going to be OK. Now it seems there's no chance for the coolant systems to recover. So how come they don't drop in some coolant (maybe liquid Nitrogen) to get the temperatures down, then pull the rods out and get them into some mobile cooling units and transfer to where ever it is that they get disposed of? Do they still think they can contain everything within the reactors? Is there no option to pull out the rods?
The problem is when people are ignorant and proud of it.
"Tide goes in, tide comes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that." - Bill O'Reilly
The same thing is happening here. People hear the word "nuclear", mispronounce it as "nukeular", and go apeshit because of their ignorance, while ignoring the real dangers of factories burning and coal plants actually releasing radiation into the atmosphere, car accidents, chemical spills... whatever. Risk assessment has never been a strong suit of humanity, and it makes it worse when people are adamant about remaining ignorant. So yes, it does piss those of us who know better off, and we may not be the kindest when we respond. It's because we are also human.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
what happened at fukushima might not be as horrible as the media portrays. however, you have to understand, when the general public sees this kind of accident and some techie starts scoffing and arrogantly laughing and proclaiming how insignicant this accident is THEY STOP LISTENING TO YOU
THEY WEREN'T LISTENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sometimes you only can get people to listen to you by disagreeing "arrogantly".
Some bold scientist needs to interrupt the hysterical reporting with a good-old-fashioned "Jane, you ignorant slut," and proceed from there.
(Not being purely inflamatory, just channeling my inner Aykroyd.)
Yes, they weren't listening. No, you're missing the point. You can (and should) disagree firmly. You don't have to compromise an iota. But you have to explain patiently and politely or they will switch off -- at which point all they'll remember after you're gone is that you're an arrogant, probably ivory-tower-educated, blow-hard that they shouldn't trust, like all the previous arrogant, probably-ivory-tower-educated blow-hards that also talked over their heads. Watch Idiocracy for demonstrations of the usual reaction.
You have to hook them in with kindness, enthusiasm, and patience to have any hope of getting them to listen. And you have to listen to them too, no matter how ridiculous. This suggestion sounds a bit condescending, and it is, but you have to know your audience and actually care about getting across to them. Yakking away and being intentionally derisive doesn't help at all with that. If you're not willing to go beyond that then you're as much an obstacle to communication as their level of attention and background knowledge is.
Why does this article have the icon for Japan and not Nuclear?
circletimesquare says: "Blah ablah blah ablah blah blah blah nuclear power is too dangerous and insist to their politicians that we don't use it. Blah blah."
I couldn't agree more. If the Fukushima reactors didn't demonstrate once and for all that the cost of nuclear power is more than the electricity produced, then the observer is too biased for anything to make a difference.
The problem isn't techies. The problem is 'experts' said such accidents can't happen. Then there was Three Mile Island. Then 'experts' said such accidents can't happen again. Then Chernobyl. Then 'experts' said it can only happen in Russia. Now we have another accident, but not in Russia: in one of the (technologically) most advanced countries in the world.
Why should the public believe in what 'experts' say now?
only a few tons of spent fuel. I'm not scared.
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
NUMBER 1:
Plutonium, if ignoring its radioactivity, is only about as toxic as fluride. Ie, not as toxic as mercury.
Except that it is incredibly deadly once ingested or inhaled due to its radioactivity.
NUMBER 2:
The longer the half-life, the WORSE it is, because it means the parts of the earth that get contaminated will not be liveable for not just hours, or days, or years, but tens of thousands of years!!!
s/whom/who so very many times
Yes they may not have been listening in the first place, but disagreeing "arrogantly" makes them start listening even less often.
I got four replies so far. Somebody is listening.
do you want nuclear power to be widely adopted?
No.
your attitude helps kill nuclear power
Excellent. Go right ahead snarking, Slashdot. The sooner fission gets shut down, the fewer catastrophic 'once in a million years' leaks every twenty years we'll have.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
The problem is 'experts' said such accidents can't happen. Then there was Three Mile Island. Then 'experts' said such accidents can't happen again. Then Chernobyl. Then 'experts' said it can only happen in Russia. Now we have another accident, but not in Russia: in one of the (technologically) most advanced countries in the world.
Do you have a reason to believe these experts may be something other than correct? Just looking at things here, Three Mile Island is nothing like Chernobyl or Fukushima. And Chernobyl has a lot of crazy Soviet, seat-of-the-pants design and decision-making in it. That certainly hasn't happened in Fukushima. So we have that a) these alleged "experts" were right about Three Mile Island, at least so far, and b) that they're square on about Chernobyl,
If they were real people, then I might well be confident in their further predictions about Fukushima. I suspect however, that these "experts" exist only in your um, rhetoric. In which case, I have a lack of trust for reasons other than the veracity of their statements.
this post really made my day... :D
I know this wont stop you, but replying to every single reply to your post is annoying jackassedry.
Yes yes, we all know the dangers of DHMO. However, you seem to be unaware that nuclear reactors convert DHMO to the versions composed of deuterium and tritium (called heavy DHMO). Once converted, heavy DHMO is totally safe. Probably if the DHMO would have been converted before that massive spill, many lives could have been spared.
Although the Richter scale is base 10, it is the log of the amplitude of the moment of movement, the actual energy of the earthquake is approximatly proportional to 1.5 power. So effectively the energy ratio is about base 31... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale
Not that anyone uses this scale anymore (they use the very similar moment magnitude scale).
Using your argument, that's about 15.8 times which is more than an order of magnitude, but probably less than many orders of magnitude.
There, fixed it for you. Who do you want to scare with best case (unicorns likely) statistics?
Rethinking email
I know this will go over like a brick on slashdot, but a guy by the name of Jesus Christ had a remarkably similar philosophy a few years earlier.
Maybe that because if you take out the magical stuff, there's nothing remarkable about Jesus' life philosophies as compared to his predecessors; like say Epicurus or Zeno, who's ideas were appropriated by early Christian writers. It's kinda like the church of Scientology? Why do they follow such a half rate sci-fi author, why not the church of Dick, Heinlein or Asimov?
Gullible people have no taste.
The risk to the multi-billion dollar nuclear power industry and their 42billion dollar stimulus is pretty great considering the events in Japan. All of you posters are arrogantly speaking about nuclear power as if it is a closed issue for any 'educated' person. It is not. An hour of unbiased research demonstrates that the nuclear industry suffers from significant corruption within their corporate culture, as do all highly subsidized, centralized power generation industries. All of the tech nerds running around stroking themselves off about the beauty and wonder of nuclear engineering need to realize quickly that what is at issue is the ability of for profit corporations to implement safe nuclear reactor designs, not whether safe nuclear reactors can be designed. According to the relevant experts (TEPCO and the IAEA) this is rated as the second worst nuclear accident in history. We are seeing a failure rate on reactors that approaches six percent, whether the failsafes kick in and prevent tragedy is immaterial. The nuclear industry has not addressed the concern of waste storage, waste transport, or waste disposal. A responsible industry would figure out its supply and maintenance infrastructure before implementation, not afterwards when they have to store 64,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.
The containment is like a colander, full of holes at the bottom for the control rods to go up. Graphite seals then keep the water in the reactor. Of course when they melt at 350C the reactor and containment are like a colander filled with radioactive noodles. I love the pro-nuke view: every leak, injury and disaster is heralded as a victory for nuke power! Almost like Obama's victories: closing GITMO, getting the troops back from Iraq in 2009 and winning in Afghanistan and "regulating" the financial sector! Nukes! Winning!
Feel free to go burn some coal in a closed room.
sublimely subtle exercises in ironic self-mockery.
I don't mean just in this thread, but all your posts I have ever read. Well, most anyway.
Physician, heal thyself.
Believe it or not acetaminophen. Really, google it.
And instead, far more people, animals and plants die from the usage of coal power. Why do you hate humanity and nature so much?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I still remember Zion nuclear power plant's help-wanted ads indicating that "algebra is helpful". I think its time for everyone to dig out their algebra book.
"I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!" - General Berringer -- War Games
Having read at least a little on Zeno and Epicurus, I have to say I do not see where you draw the parallel from. Their views appear to be contradictory to the teachings of Jesus is most meaningful ways. I also find your distrust of early Christian writers to accurately reflect the teachings of Jesus kind of biased unless you can give some evidence in support of this argument. Also, the root of much of Jesus' teachings can actually be traced to books of the Jewish Torah which predates the Greek examples you gave. That said, my original point was just to point out that it wasn't a new concept if some modern philosopher was pointing out that particular view.
AJ Henderson
THEY WEREN'T LISTENING IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sometimes you only can get people to listen to you by disagreeing "arrogantly".
But more often they will slam the door in your face.
False choice: New reactors will remove old reactors from production.
Many new wind plants, coal plants, natural gas plants have been built. But it is incredibly hard to get rid of a nuke. Economically there is no reason to shut down an old nuke when a new one is built. The new one will be insanely expensive. The old one cheap. The economics of power generation has externalized the costs of an accident with the Price - Andersen insurance act. So they will still run the old dangerous plant until it breaks. And in 30 years they will run the next generation nuke plants until they are old and dangerous and break. The economics dictate it. Power companies are economic animals and safety does not matter. It is not in the equation of whether a plant is run or not.
You completely misunderstand it's not that most geeks want nuclear power to be adopted we just want everyone to stop acting like a bunch if ignoramus chicken littles about it. I.E. stop running around in circles looking for iodine tablets in CA.
And it would be nice if the media used a little bit less sensationalism and took a more rational approach to the whole subject.
But we are all pretty well convinced neither will happen... Because people are people.
Old plants if they are shut down will turn very expensive to turn off and clean up. That is another reason to run them until they have an accident and a cheaper way of cleaning them is done, just wall off 10-20km radius of free land (no compensation given by the company) and pour some cement on the mess and run away with the money. The choice is run and get income or close and spend a lot of money until it blows up, then run away.
All of you posters are arrogantly speaking about nuclear power as if it is a closed issue for any 'educated' person.
Let's look at the Fukushima accident as "educated" people.
An hour of unbiased research demonstrates that the nuclear industry suffers from significant corruption within their corporate culture, as do all highly subsidized, centralized power generation industries.
This culture wasn't responsible for the magnitude 9 quake and accompanying tsunami waves. So the fundamental cause of the Fukushima accident was not due to corruption, bureaucracy, etc.
Centralization does seem to be a problem since there were six reactors in one location, each with its own nuclear rod cooling ponds. Many of these areas caused problems during the accident. The area apparently had to be evacuated twice due to radiation releases (the last on Wednesday, March 23). I would say that having 6 reactors and 6 cooling ponds in one place did complicate the disaster response.
All of the tech nerds running around stroking themselves off about the beauty and wonder of nuclear engineering need to realize quickly that what is at issue is the ability of for profit corporations to implement safe nuclear reactor designs, not whether safe nuclear reactors can be designed.
So what makes you think the accident calls this into question? I look at the accident and I see a business promptly working with government to successfully keep a serious accident from getting much worse.
According to the relevant experts (TEPCO and the IAEA) this is rated as the second worst nuclear accident in history.
Not by deaths caused. Chernobyl and Kyshtym were worse. There's also medical radiation accidents such as Costa Rica, Zaragoza, and several in the US. I think your characterization of this accident as being the "second worst" nuclear accident is pretty weak given the lack of casualties.
We are seeing a failure rate on reactors that approaches six percent
From one magnitude 9 quake and one country. That's pretty damn good. Note that this is also the first core melt since Chernobyl, 25 years ago.
whether the failsafes kick in and prevent tragedy is immaterial.
If it prevents tragedy, then it becomes far more material than whatever argument you were trying to make.
The nuclear industry has not addressed the concern of waste storage, waste transport, or waste disposal. A responsible industry would figure out its supply and maintenance infrastructure before implementation, not afterwards when they have to store 64,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.
It would start with the public getting a bit of common sense. Waste storage becomes a much less serious issue if you are allowed to recycle rods and store waste in sensible locations.
Judging by the Troll and Flamebait modding you've received on your helpful posts, we can assume there are quite a few assholes among us would rather cluck their tongues than extend a hand. I just want to let you know that I completely empathize with your position.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Will M$ ever come up with anything original?
Animals in the wild generally don't live to old age. Heck, half the birds on the planet die each year. Coal pollution not an issue.
Plants like carbon dioxide. Coal pollution not an issue.
And then to human life. Has human life become longer, or shorter, since the widespread use of coal? The answer is, longer. Coal pollution not an issue.
the issue is circletimessquare who does not respect the techies. instead of educating them, he laughs at them
Fixed it for you, you egotistical dork.
Many people, techies or otherwise, are hostile to learning.. If they come to you with a question they'll be upset it you give them a hint (ie, that they should look it up on their own, from here) instead of step-by-step directions. Similarly, if you can't convince someone of something with absolute proof they'll believe what they saw on TV, and they'll wield their disbelief like a weapon to avoid having to admit that they could look it up and learn something, instead getting pissed off and shouting about agreeing to disagree.
The "Common Man" is usually someone who has abrogated responsibility for their own life and actions anywhere taking responsibility would require reading any instructions. Tech or not, willful ignorance smells the same.
what happened at fukushima might not be as horrible as the media portrays. however, you have to understand, when the general public sees this kind of accident and some techie starts scoffing and arrogantly laughing and proclaiming how insignicant this accident is THEY STOP LISTENING TO YOU
there is an educated person on a given subject matter, and an uneducated person. what does it take to turn the uneducated person educated? well, not the attitude you see on display in the post above
when the educated person acts like an arrogant ass, the uneducated people doesn't learn anything except that you have an ego problem. they immediately tune you out, and most importantly, they decide, without your input, that nuclear power is too dangerous and insist to their politicians that we don't use it. because no one educated them. they just scoffed at them
do you want nuclear power to be widely adopted? then impassionately and concisely summarize why things might not be as bas they seem to be to the average person. when they ask a stupid question, or display colossal ignorance on a subject matter, smile and educate them simply and succinctly. or laugh at them. and see nuclear power get mothballed everywhere
frankly, ego problems like on display in the comment board above are more irresponsible than an uneducated public. because they show that the educated are more interested in proclaiming their "superiority" (eg, their ego problems) than actually informing people
congratulations jackass: your attitude helps kill nuclear power
You're getting closer, the problem with the arrogance is it displays a lack of real-world smarts. The truly "educated person" as you call it is the one who throws everything they once thought about the safety of nuclear reactors out and starts trying to figure out how they could have been so far off, once he saw the burning rubble piles that once were nuclear reactors in Japan. The arrogant and stupid are still arguing that they were right all along.
What it underscores is that no matter how well designed it is it cannot be operated safely.
In the coming months we are going to see much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands of how flood proof diesel generators were not retrofitted to the reactor facility. Despite having 40 years to do it, geological science available as a reason why, plenty of funding and a strong motivation in terms of surrounding population, it was never done, yet you claim nuclear power is safe.
Windscale (1957, Level 5), Three Mile Island (1979, level 4), Chernobyl (1986, level 7) and Fukushima (2011, Level 5) are all examples of how nuclear designs have proven they cannot be operated safely by humans. Yet while radionuclide contamination occured from all of these facilities, you claim nuclear power is safe .
Ordinary people, firefighters and plant workers, have had to expose themselves to unknown toxic levels of radioactive isotopes to bring about the outcome you claim makes "nuclear power safe". It's more than likely that these people will get radiation sickness and some will die. Yet, prematurely, before the accident has even played out, before we even know how many people have been affected, you open your big, uninformed, arrogant fanboi mouth and claim nuclear power is safe.
I don't see any mad scramble to retrofit tsunami proof backup generators to all the generation one General Electric Nuclear reactors operating in the coastal areas of the United States. How many of them are in earthquake zones? You claim there is a lesson for the future but the warnings have been there for decades still not being listened to because people, like you, even while three nuclear reactors sit smoldering pumping unknown quantities of radioactive isotopes into the environment and cooling pools with several hundred tons of pu-239 exposed because the design of the reactor was overloaded due to sheer negligence, continue to claim Nuclear power is safe.
You are clearly delusional.
Until the stupid, uninformed, arrogant, mentally lazy pro-nuclear fanbois do their research, understand the actual limitations of the technology, the actual risks and accept responsibility, your voice will become more and more irrelevant. Which is a shame because I personally feel that if you accept the risks of an enterprise you are one step closer to mitigating the risks. Make no doubt, this whole Fukushima disaster is the fault of all the pro-nuclear fanbois out there who lulled people into a sense of security about nuclear power and consumed the energy of those who tried to lobby for improvement that would make a earthquake and tsunami irrelevant.
Any person who adheres to the principles of responsible nuclear advocacy will admit that no matter how necessary they feel Nuclear power may be, it is a risky enterprise that requires constant vigilance, constant improvement refinement and observation if it is to be operated safely. They would lobby for it to occur - are you listening, pro-nuclear fanboi slashdotter?
The idiotic, arrogant, stupid, pathetic and failure prone thinking of a pro-nuclear fanbois argument looks like they banging a nail into a wall with a hand grenade while turning to their guests saying "it's perfectly safe, it's never gone off before" and wondering why everybody is scrambling to get out of the room.
Don't take it personally, I'll probably get modded down for saying this but it's not just you. I'm directing it at all the delusional pro-nuclear fanbois here who constantly berate those who lobby for the kind of improvement the nuclear industry *requires* to actually make it safe.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
This culture wasn't responsible for the magnitude 9 quake and accompanying tsunami waves. So the fundamental cause of the Fukushima accident was not due to corruption, bureaucracy, etc.
The corporate culture was responsible for this:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/09/02/japan.tepco/index.html?related
A scandal which ended with the Senior Officers all stepping down. So we have a company running this plant with a history of safety violations and document falsification, but I'm sure the current disaster was completely unforeseeable.
Centralization does seem to be a problem since there were six reactors in one location,
In this context I was referring to centralized power as being power plant based, not just highly localized on site. For instance, the nature and distribution of most renewable power resources necessitate distributed systems.
So what makes you think the accident calls this into question? I look at the accident and I see a business promptly working with government to successfully keep a serious accident from getting much worse.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The japanese government is clearly upset with TEPCo's handling of the situation. The released information is routinely questionable. The disaster response at this point is kabuki theatre at best. And this serious accident has gone from "nothing to see here folks" to second worst nuclear accident in history.
Not by deaths caused. Chernobyl and Kyshtym were worse. There's also medical radiation accidents such as Costa Rica, Zaragoza, and several in the US. I think your characterization of this accident as being the "second worst" nuclear accident is pretty weak given the lack of casualties.
Once again, just a few minutes of research would demonstrate that the INES classifies nuclear accidents not just by deaths but by radiation release and environmental effects. The Japanese government itself rated it at 5 (the same as 3-mile island) on March 18th. Since then radiation release has increased. France, Finland and the USA have rated them at 6 on the INES scale. And as of this writing, there has been essentially no improvement at the plant. Incidentally, each reactor is being rated separately at 5, I wonder how they aggregate.
We are seeing a failure rate on reactors that approaches six percent
From one magnitude 9 quake and one country. That's pretty damn good. Note that this is also the first core melt since Chernobyl, 25 years ago.
The 6% figure is in reference to all 436 commercial reactors on earth, and it is a conservative estimate. Some have calculated over 115 nuclear incidents since 1960. The failure rate between Fukushima 1 and 2 is 50%.
whether the failsafes kick in and prevent tragedy is immaterial.
If it prevents tragedy, then it becomes far more material than whatever argument you were trying to make.
No it becomes indicative. It means every time someone says "1 in a billion chance" they're talking out of their ass. If we are having routine safety failures with 1000 reactors? Or 2000? It points to massive scaling issues that are not being addressed. We've had significant nuclear accidents every 15 years with the relatively small amount of nuclear plants we have. If we were to ramp that number up, how can we possibly say future incidents won't increase?
The nuclear industry has not addressed the concern of waste
The corporate culture was responsible for this:
So how did they cause the earthquake? Have you read the story BTW? It says nothing about the current crisis, but some failure to report problems 10-20 years ago. They are resigning because the public is scared and needs someone to blame, not because they did anything wrong then or now.
Then you haven't been paying attention. The japanese government is clearly upset with TEPCo's handling of the situation. The released information is routinely questionable. The disaster response at this point is kabuki theatre at best. And this serious accident has gone from "nothing to see here folks" to second worst nuclear accident in history.
Pardon me for stopping your stream of bullshit here, but the Russians have a second nuclear accident that was also worse than Fukushima (a glance at Wikipedia indicates it might have killed more people than Chernobyl!). And there are several medical radiotherapy accidents which caused more casualties (deaths and injuries) than Fukushima. Then there are military accidents such as nuclear sub accidents which are a mite bit worse. In other words, you can call Fukushima the "second worst nuclear accident" only if you are completely ignorant of nuclear history.
The 6% figure is in reference to all 436 commercial reactors on earth, and it is a conservative estimate. Some have calculated over 115 nuclear incidents since 1960. The failure rate between Fukushima 1 and 2 is 50%.
Well, I guess I need to point out that Fukushima has a touch less than 6% of all nuclear reactors on Earth. And saying Fukushima 1 and 2 have a failure rate of 50%? Do you realize how stupid an assertion that is? First, they both "failed". They are contaminated with salt water, boric acid, and radioactive products, and everyone is saying they won't ever run again even if they weren't.
Second, if you had looked at it at the beginning of March, then both reactors had "succeeded" for 35 to 40 years. It's not like falling off a 40 story building and saying as the ground rushes up that you've been "successful" so far. Each year of operation is productive and gives something to society. Instead it's like saying a car "failed" because it gets wrecked in 40 years, completely ignoring how much it was driven around.
No it becomes indicative. It means every time someone says "1 in a billion chance" they're talking out of their ass. If we are having routine safety failures with 1000 reactors? Or 2000? It points to massive scaling issues that are not being addressed. We've had significant nuclear accidents every 15 years with the relatively small amount of nuclear plants we have. If we were to ramp that number up, how can we possibly say future incidents won't increase?
Ok, I'll agree that the 1 in a billion people are probably completely wrong. But we have several meltdowns to look at now. Even if they're more common than we'd like, they cause surprisingly little harm. Unlike in the movie, China Syndrome, real world reactors don't render uninhabitable, areas the size of Pennsylvania.
We have "incidents" with other sorts of industrial sites which also release radiation into the environment. Somehow we manage to maintain perspective with those. Coal burning plants release more radiation into the environment than a nuclear plant does. There are something like hundreds of coal fires burning uncontrolled in the world today (some which have burned for decades). Those are releasing, among other things, significant levels of radiation into the atmosphere. Every airplane flight exposes people to elevated levels of radiation. Each of these would be a scary "incident report" if it had happened at a nuclear plant.
Which does not get past the point that the Nuclear Industry produced waste that they have no ability to deal with. Presumably we exist wi
The article I presented is in reference to the corrupt management culture that is in charge of nuclear assets. No they did not cause the earthquake nor did they cause the tsunami, I didn't realize I had to explicitly say that for you to follow my argument. What they did do was falsify safety reports. The same safety reports that nuclear proponents like yourself toss around to demonstrate how safe and wonderful nuclear power is. These are the same safety reports that they use to lobby congress to back loans and bonds on nuclear equipment. My contention is your argument is based on faulty information, as has been clearly demonstrated by your own post. Consequently, the idea that an educated person would naturally take at face value the pronouncement of the nuclear industry and always support the growth of nuclear power is false.
Pardon me for stopping your stream of bullshit here
You realize you're arguing with TEPCo management and the Japanese government right? I din't rate this nuclear incident at a 5. The parties involved with mitigating this disaster did. Further, the rating of 6 was determined by governing bodies of the appropriate nations I indicated. Its not my bullshit, its the bullshit coming from the industry you're trying so hard to promote.
And there are several medical radiotherapy accidents which caused more casualties (deaths and injuries) than Fukushima. Then there are military accidents such as nuclear sub accidents which are a mite bit worse. In other words, you can call Fukushima the "second worst nuclear accident" only if you are completely ignorant of nuclear history.
Lets forget that Fukushima is an ongoing incident; 11 days ago 3 of the failed reactors were rated as a 5 on the INES scale by the Japanese government. If all radiation release halted at that moment it would have likely been the second worst nuclear disaster in history. And you keep going back to deaths. Nuclear incidents are not rated solely by number of casualties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale
If it were only by casualties, then by your estimate Chernobyl wouldn't be on the list would it? And by your own scale of casualties Kyshtym had none.
Well, I guess I need to point out that Fukushima has a touch less than 6% of all nuclear reactors on Earth.
No, you don't need to point that out, it was clear in my post I was refering to all the reactors on earth, I said that explicitly. Earth includes japan. Its strange to me I have to point out such simple facts to an "educated" individual.
And saying Fukushima 1 and 2 have a failure rate of 50%? Do you realize how stupid an assertion that is? First, they both "failed". They are contaminated with salt water, boric acid, and radioactive products, and everyone is saying they won't ever run again even if they weren't.
Second, if you had looked at it at the beginning of March, then both reactors had "succeeded" for 35 to 40 years. It's not like falling off a 40 story building and saying as the ground rushes up that you've been "successful" so far. Each year of operation is productive and gives something to society. Instead it's like saying a car "failed" because it gets wrecked in 40 years, completely ignoring how much it was driven around.
Once again, the context of my statement was clear, these reactors failed in the sense that they moved catastrophically far outside of their operating range and as consequence their failure will greatly impact the world economy and the ecology of Japan. My argument, which you are so charmingly obtuse to, is that the inherent flaw of nuclear power is the culture that employs it. This argument is beautifully demonstrated by the fact that the most technologically advanced culture on the planet extended the operational license of a 40 year old plant, managed by a c
The article I presented is in reference to the corrupt management culture that is in charge of nuclear assets. No they did not cause the earthquake nor did they cause the tsunami, I didn't realize I had to explicitly say that for you to follow my argument. What they did do was falsify safety reports.
First, read your article. It doesn't say that they falsified records, merely that they're "suspected" of doing so. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It's basically a face-saving way for the government to demand the resignation of the management of TEPCO and for TEPCO to comply. If no earthquake happened and there weren't public hysteria, then there wouldn't be a reason to go through with this twisted little kabuki play.
Only if your only metric is immediate casualties. When do you think the Fukushima prefecture will be inhabitable again?
Immediate casualties are a pretty good measure. And the Fukushima prefecture is already inhabitable.
The fears aren't irrational. Your pollyanna stance on the nuclear industry is. And those "clueless people" have just as much right to an opinion on the matter as you do. Those "clueless people" happen to have a clue about just what kind of people are painting the pretty pretty nuclear picture. And those "clueless people" aren't as apt to buy the nuclear industry's bullshit.
You've repeated shown you don't have a clue. Clue one: earthquake caused the Fukushima accident.
So nuclear is safe because something is worse?
No, I merely point out the irrationality of your stance of nuclear power. There are many other "dangerous" sources of radiation which are ignored by the clueless.
The people who live at those sites don't want it and the industry isn't offering anything to make it worth their while besides false assertions about the spent fuel's harmlessness.
Then get the industry to pay to move these people out. Stop being a baby about a trivial problem.
They aren't saying they don't exist, they're saying they won't work to do what we need them to do.
You keep making excuses for them. It's just another means to end nuclear power for them.
Right, not rising fossil fuel costs, expanding energy demands or a multi-billion dollar lobby, its just those damn lying hippies. Just filthy, dirty, all powerful greenpeace membership having, treehuggers. You;ve clearly got an accurate understanding of the world. I concede to you sir. Nuke baby nuke.
Sorry, but I got the impression you're not ready to STFU yet. Give it a month. Then you'll see that they got things under control a week ago.
Sure there will be scary radiation leaks and other minor problems. Meltdowns don't clean up easily. Sure, the Japanese government will find some sign of "corruption" in TEPCO management. Blamefinding hasn't ended just because the TEPCO management resigned. I imagine they'll figure out that maybe a forty year old reactor based on a fifty year design wasn't all that safe. They'll also find out that a magnitude 9 earthquake caused the accident and that disaster response to this was exceptional at Fukushima.
Stop trying to fit Fukushima into your broken myth. Learn what really happened there.