Slashdot Mirror
Japan Raises Nuclear Plant Crisis Severity To 7
darkonc writes "Early Tuesday in Japan, the government decided to
raise the severity level of the accident to the maximum 7 on an international scale, up from the current 5 and matching that of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe. The government declared the level 7 emergency because it is now estimated that the crippled plant was emitting over 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactivity for a number of hours at the height of the nuclear incident. Previously, on Monday, the government had expanded the evacuation zone around the plant to include at least 6 cities up to 60 km away from the plant. These cities, outside of the current 20-30 km evacuation area, are now expected to exceed the 20 millisieverts/year limit on residual radiation established by International Commission on Radiological Protection and the International Atomic Energy Agency in the case of an emergency."
I think using a scale based on 'the worst nuclear disaster so far' isn't a great idea. Do we add #8 'Fukushima' to the scale if it gets any worse?
And people on slashdot.org read that Japan has already released 10% as much radioactive material as Chernobyl, and somehow it's all a liberal scare. BP has the worst oil spill in US history, yet somehow this is a non-issue for the environment. And somehow, this is all related to tax breaks for the rich, and building up our military. Group think in full swing.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Local-ish, like me, in my hometown 1000 miles from Chernobyl, not being able to collect mushrooms due to Strontium contamination, today? I completely agree that coal has to go, but hopefully, nuclear will be only a temporary solution, to be phased out for renewables in the next decades.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
about fukushima always minimizing, belittling, or otherwise dismissing what is happening here as hysteria or science illiteracy?
it seems like a form of denial to me
we're talking about the end of nuclear power in japan, and perhaps elsewhere
if you don't understand why, you really are in denial, and you don't understand risk analysis
it's not hysteria going on here. really
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am broadly in favour of nuclear energy - in principle. In practice, I have faith in neither corporate compliance nor government monitoring. Neither entity is equipped, or motivated, to appropriately manage long term risk... and that means you can good as guarantee failures. Hysteria about nuclear contamination, IMHO, has made matters worse - encouraging officials to focus exclusively upon reassuring the public that there is "no risk" at the expense of a focus on restricting and mitigating the consequences of the (ultimately inevitable) eventual accident.
Are you a shill for the nuclear industry? An astroturfer? Because that's the only reason I can think for such a stupid comment. I'm tired of all the pro-nuclear wankers on slashdot. Fine, coal is bad and we should try to replace it ASAP. But your relativism doesn't make nuclear desirable. It is another bad (and probably worse) energy source because it is INHERENTLY DANGEROUS!
I'd take a world powered by nuclear any day.
And if you replaced all of the coal-fired power plants around the world with nuclear, how many accidents do you think we would be having annually? How many major disasters would it take for you to admit it is a bad idea, because while it *can* be safe, it never *would* be safe.
At least the problems with nuclear are local-ish.
Fucking moron.
Ahem;
Are you a shill for the wind power industry? An astroturfer? Because that's the only reason I can think for such a stupid comment.
I'm tired of all the anti-nuclear wankers on Slashdot.
Your "INHERENTLY DANGEROUS!" nonsense doesen't mean a damn, because a 40 year old power station was hit by an enourmous earthquake, then an enourmous tsunami; no-one died, and the surrounding area is roughly as polluted as would be caused by the average oil refinery fire.
Hell, there WAS a big refinery fire nearby too; but that got ignored because the scary nuc-ular power plant is spitting out some radioisotopes that will at most present a tiny cancer risk for people locally, and has made the surrounding area roughly as radioactive as being on a goddamn aeroplane.
As someone else on here has already pointed out, there was an oil rig disaster last year which has actually killed people and has polluted a wider area more severely than Fukushima has. No-one said "oil is INHERENTLY DANGEROUS!" and called for all oil production worldwide to end. They said "Christ, they should be more careful with that stuff" which indeed they should. The same applies with this.
Everything in the world is inherently dangerous in some way or another. RIGHT NOW you're sitting mere inches from mains electricity that could kill you, and indeed kills hundreds of people every year in a country near you. You don't raise merry hell about that. Statistically, major incidents included, nuclear remains the safest form of electricity production known, including safe and cuddly solar, hydro, wind etc.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
You mean the politicking stops and someone either shuts them down or replaces them? At the moment no-one wants to deal with losing the fairly significant contribution that nukes make to our energy supplies, presumably the lights going out is a vote-loser, but no-one wants to build newer safer ones, presumably because it's a vote loser. The most stupid thing about the situation is that the middle ground is the most dangerous - blocking progress and the development and construction of better safer plants and meaning the older plants get lifetime extensions.
Except ignorant scaremongering frequently prevails over truth and reason. Not all radioactive releases are equal. The source of the radiation is as important as where its released and how it was released.
The reality is, the current rating is based on radiation at the source NOT its comparability in scope to Chernobyl. That's not to say they will never or can never be comparable, only that comparisons to Chernobyl at this point is pure idiocy and scaremongering - classic anti-nuclear propaganda.
Show me one incident of a refinery fire that required a decades-long evacuation of thousands of square kilometers, then we talk.
If refinery fires had the same evacuation criteria in terms of actual risk to people, they would all require extensive evacuation. Sooty oil smoke is plenty carcinogenic, and I would bet good money that the "statistically noticeable cancer risk area" would be at least as large for a refinery fire as it is for Fukushima right now.
The whole thing is a caution-outrage spiral; public concern creates the need for immensely cautious evacuation, which creates more public concern. People are always concerned about any risk from radiation, whereas some 20% of the population subject themselves to a quite large risk from intentionally inhaling smoke for a buzz. That's why a cloud of radioiodine that might give 20 extra people cancer creates global panic, while a cloud of oil smoke that might give 20 extra people cancer doesn't.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
This is a prime example of journalists creating hysteria based on their ignorance. The scale on their device never went over 100uS/hr - that's MICRO-Sieverts.... To put this in perspective, read http://xkcd.com/radiation/
They never risked their lives at all
If you pay attention to the scale in those geiger counters you will notice that although it makes a lot of noise it measures radiation in micro sieverts. The geiger counter made the most noise at 15 micro Sieverts. In comparison, an airplane flight from LA to NY earns you 40 micro Sieverts.
If we rig a thermometer with a siren when temperature hits 30C then it will also sound dangerous. That doesn't make it a danger to your health.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
The Guardian posted an excellent rebutal to this point of view by Helen Caldicott: How Nuclear Apologists Mislead the World Over Radiation . The article you linked dismissed this article disparagingly with a three word ad hominem attack: "mad Auntie Fear" without addressing, let alone countering, any of her arguments. Instead, the Register article repeats the very mistakes Caldicott had identified.
Helen Caldicott is a medical doctor. She taught pediatrics at the Harvard Medical School for two years before turning her focus to researching and reporting the health hazards of nuclear power.
OTOH, Lewis Page (assuming it is the same Lewis Page):
... served as an officer in the Royal Navy from 1993 to 2004, and is now an author and authority on military matters.
You can also get an idea of his expertise by looking at his other articles at the Register.
It is amazing that you think the article by Lewis Page is authoritative since he has absolutely no expertise on the subject; he totally ignores criticism from a person who is an authority; and he dismisses the authority with a rude ad hominem attack. OTOH, his level of discourse would fit right in with the irrational, faith-based pro-nuclear advocacy here on Slashdot.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin