Slashdot Mirror
Fukushima Decontamination Cost Estimated $50bn, With Questionable Effectiveness
AmiMoJo writes "Experts from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology studied the cost of decontamination for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, estimating it at $50 billion. They estimate that decontamination in no-entry zones will cost up to 20 billion dollars, and in other areas, 31 billion dollars. It includes the cost of removing, transporting and storing radioactive waste such as contaminated soil. The central government has so far allocated about 11 billion dollars and the project is already substantially behind schedule. Meanwhile the effectiveness of the decontamination is being questioned. NHK compared data from before and after decontamination at 43 districts in 21 municipalities across Fukushima Prefecture. In 33 of the districts, or 77 percent of the total, radiation levels were still higher than the government-set standard of one millisievert per year. In areas near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, where decontamination has been carried out on an experimental basis, radiation levels remain 10 to 60 times higher than the official limit."
You should read a history book that wasn't written in the U.S. by a nuclear bomb apologist.
The negotiations for Japans surrender started before the bombs were dropped. It is stipulated that one of the reasons the bombs were used anyway was to demonstrate the power of them to scare Soviet.
Regardless of the reasons both the targets were selected because they had a large population around them surrounded by high ground for the extra oomph. There were stronger military targets that could have been chosen, the amount of civilian deaths were intentionally high.
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Dwight Eisenhower
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William D. Leahy
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." - Herbert Hoover
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." - Brigadier General Carter Clarke
Don't get me wrong, I don't try to defend Japans atrocities during/before the war, I'm just saying that one atrocity doesn't justify another.
I don't believe they should have huge petro based power plants that should something go amiss incinerate exceptionally large areas and make them un-livable well beyond your life span, causing slow deaths to large populations with birth defects years to come.
That statement is just as silly as if you said 'OH, well bullets kill, and are made of metal, maybe no one should use metal there either?!'
I disagree with nuclear reactors in populated areas that should the worse happen would kill / destroy people's health. /huge/ accidents. I don't object to nuclear technology on small scale, submarines, space craft etc, where the risks
Most people ignore potential problems because it's never happened. Some people don't lock doors until something is stolen from them, as an example.
Japan had first hand experience with how deadly radiation is.
They should know the risks better than anyone, and I think the risks weren't worth it. Clearly it's hindsight now but I know I wouldn't want
a large scale nuclear reactor anywhere near me.
Accidents happen, but these become
are significantly lower.
On the other hand, what are the alternatives? Coal releases more radioactivity than nuclear (plus other nastiness). Japan doesn't have terribly much space so large-scale land-based wind and solar might not work. I think they also don't have enough large rivers for hydro. I'm not sure whether offshore wind parks would be feasible but given the fact that the area is tsunami-prone they might be tricky to maintain.
That essentially leaves us with geothermal (nice but only works in few areas), oil (doesn't have a good track record either) and nuclear.
Nuclear can be safe, you just need to treat it with the proper respect. The largest nuclear accidents happened because people were dangerously irresponsible. The Fukushima accident could've been avoided if a) TEPCO had listened to the experts and installed higher flood walls, b) TEPCO hadn't decided to build the backup power infrastructure in such a way that it would be guaranteed to fail once a likely threat to the plant's safety occurred and c) Japan had ensured that all offsite backup generators were actually compatible with all reactors in the country. There were other screwups involved but avoiding any of these would've made the plant flooding a non-issue.
Yes, nuclear power can be immensely dangerous if not done right. So can petrochemistry and a lot of other industries; nuclear power is just harder to clean up and thus we need to be more careful around it. I get that. But really, we can make safe, reasonably clean nuclear work if we just make damn sure that the people involed aren't idiots or willfully negligent. For instance, we could install third-party oversight committees with the power to make unannounced inspections, ask uncomfortable questions and shut down a plant if they don't like what they hear. Also, add extra-strict anti-corruption laws for eveyone involved. In case of falsified safety records (also something TEPCO did, although as far as I know not directly relevant to the disaster) launch a full-scale investigation against the entire company and jail everyone who knew of it and didn't report it, piercing the corporate veil.
Nuclear power is not somehing you dick around with. We're in agreement on that. But the way forward is not to assume that there are no responsible people on Earth and thus we can't ever use nuclear power, it's to instate harsh rules that force people to behave responsibly. That means fewer nuke plants because running one will be more expensive and will take actual effort. But those plants we get should be acceptably safe.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I agree, this number is a non-sense. In fact it is not that easy to find a place on Earth, where the background radiation is as low as 1 mSv/y. Average US value is 3.1 mSv/y, Japan 1.4 mSv/y, there are exceptional places reaching over 100 mSv/y. To reach the 1 mSv/y mark, they are aiming at something that seems impossible to achieve. They say it is 10-60 mSv/y next to a blown-up reactor. How much is it in a place where people actually live? 2, 5, 10? These numbers are perfectly acceptable (I live in a town with average dosage 5 mSv/y).
Saw Edwin Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists several times on the TV after the disaster. He used it as an opportunity to call attention to regulation and safety procedures for reactors in the United States. He said current evacuation procedures for evacuation zones for nuclear reactors were insufficient. Physicians for Social Responsibility have a useful map for checking your proximity to a nuclear reactor http://www.psr.org/resources/evacuation-zone-nuclear-reactors.html From their site, "Current NRC regulations stipulate a 10 mile evacuation zone around nuclear plants. This is clearly insufficient and 50 miles has been recommended." They also note that 1/3 of all Americans live within 50 miles of a reactor.