Slashdot Mirror


Why the Japanese Government Should Take Over the Fukushima Nuclear Plant

Lasrick writes "The Japan Times has an opinion piece about the seriousness of the situation at Fukushima and the incompetence of Tepco. The article makes the case that it's time for the Japanese government to step in and take control of the plant to facilitate clean-up. Quoting: 'Japan has been very lucky that nothing worse has occurred at the plant. But luck eventually runs out. The longer Tepco stays in charge of the decommissioning process, the worse the odds become. Without downplaying the seriousness of leaks and the other setbacks at the plant, it is important to recognize that things could very quickly get much worse. In November, Tepco plans to begin the delicate operation of removing spent fuel from Reactor No. 4. There are 1,300 used fuel rod assemblies in a pool above the reactor. They weigh a total of 400 tons, and contain radiation equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb. The spent-fuel pool, standing 18 meters above ground, was damaged by the earthquake and tsunami and is in a deteriorating condition. It remains vulnerable to any further shocks, and is also at risk from ground liquefaction. Removing its spent fuel, which contains deadly plutonium, is an urgent task.'"

211 comments

  1. More government! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

    The solution is more government!

    1. Re:More government! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is when a corporate entity want the mess taken over.

      Is Japan going to resist the drive to socialize the loss of corporations that can't keep their shit together?

    2. Re:More government! by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sometimes it is, actually.

      Contrary to popular psychosis, the solution is not always "less government".

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:More government! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      TEPCO were just as responsible, if not more so. So "more corporations" apparently isn't the answer either. What do you propose to do?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, only laissez-faire free-market capitalism is the solution. Some great industrialist will think of some way to turn a profit cleaning up this and every other ecological mess anhttp://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/08/30/1250234/why-the-japanese-government-should-take-over-the-fukushima-nuclear-plant#d cake, puppies, and a fat pay check will be had by all the hard working folk.

    5. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The solution is more competance, government or otherwise, just fix it and don't make any more mistakes in the process.

    6. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, just check out what happened in Quebec, Lac-Megantic...

    7. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Quebec doesn't have a government. It has a large bureaucracy that exists only to collect as much as possible from its citizenry, and give as little as possible to its citizens. In Quebec we get steamed hot dogs but we get a filet mignon bill.

    8. Re:More government! by countach74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing we need to ask ourselves is not a question of is more/less government the solution, but rather, is this a job that the government can do more effectively? With something such as crucial as this, we must make sure that the means chosen have a good (ideally, the best) likelihood of reaching the ends desired.

    9. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are thinking backwards, sir.

    10. Re:More government! by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With something such as crucial as this, we must make sure that the means chosen have a good (ideally, the best) likelihood of reaching the ends desired.

      And, of a company worried about their own profits and which has been doing a lousy job of the cleanup, or a government which is strongly motivated to get it done -- which would you trust?

      Corporations do a lousy job of cleaning up messes like this because they're more worried about spin than actually doing the work.

      So the whole time BT was saying "oh, it's only a little oil" they knew it was a load of crap -- but they were more interested in laying blame to contractors and spinning the PR.

      Me, I'd put far more faith in the Japanese government than the company who operated the plant and has been doing such a bad job of cleaning it up.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:More government! by countach74 · · Score: 1

      Well ideally, corporations should not exist at all. The trouble is that the corporations have very little true incentive to do "what's right" because of the limited liability nature of them. Furthermore, just because we have issues created by corporations does *not* mean that the solution is government. They are not opposites (and even if they were does not mean the opposite of a bad decision is a good decision). In fact, corporations cannot exist without government (it is government that defines a corporation and grants it its liability immunities).

    12. Re:More government! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sometimes it is, actually.

      Sometimes. But probably not in this case. The government of Japan does not have an elite team of nuclear cleanup ninjas waiting in the wings. In fact, they have no expertise in this area. TEPCO's initial response was incompetent, but the government's response wasn't so good either. And the government was responsible for the regulatory system that allowed the accident to happen. TEPCO's constant underplaying of the severity, and withholding of information, is a Japanese cultural thing, and the government would have done the same if not worse. These statements were misleading to westerners, who are used to officials that normally exaggerate problems, but it was not misleading to the Japanese public, who just assume that whatever officials say, the reality is ten times worse.

    13. Re:More government! by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yea, pretty much it is. What do you think is going to happen if the government takes over the plant? Does the government have nuclear workers? Any expertise at all in this area? No? So they are going to hire whomever has the best knowledge of the facility... oh, Tepco. So now, not only is Tepco still in charge of the cleanup, they're now getting paid to do it and the responsibility for the result is now off their shoulders and there's endless layers of red tape they have to get through to actually do anything.

      A more appropriate solution would be to send in government inspectors, have them on-site 24/7 and reporting back to government officials. Make Tepco pay their wages as well.

    14. Re:More government! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, but they can hire those folks and have motivation to do so.

      At this point the Fukushima site is a total write off. TEPCO has no reason to spend any money on it. What should happen is the government should bring in the right folks to fix it, and TEPCO should be forced to pay for it.

    15. Re:More government! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Or they could hire the best and brightest to oversee the engineers at TEPCO.

      Do you think it was the engineers or the bean counters that fucked this up?

      Of course TEPCO should pay the full cost of this, in addition to fines and possible criminal penalties.

    16. Re:More government! by rmstar · · Score: 1

      TEPCO's constant underplaying of the severity, and withholding of information, is a nuclear industry cultural thing

      Fixed that for you. It's like that everywhere.

      The argument in favor of gov. takeover is that a government can spend money in a different way and plan in a different way than a company that has to look for profit. That is especially so in a situation like this that is just a costly mess.

    17. Re:More government! by countach74 · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with your claims about corporations doing a lousy job. In fact, just a few posts down I mentioned how the limited liability nature of corporations is one of the real problems. However, this is not a matter of who we trust, but in fact a question of what means reaches the desired ends best. Governments are notoriously inefficient in most areas. They may in fact generally do a better job of cleaning up such messes than corporations, in which case I think that may be a viable option. I do not know the answer, I am just raising the question. One thing to remember, though, is the incentive that we create for corporations by cleaning up their messes for them. If we continue to remove the risk (or some of the risk) from the corporation, we should expect them to partake in increasingly risky behavior.

    18. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right! The solution to fixing a nuclear disaster caused by a corporation is to ensure the government stays away!

    19. Re:More government! by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Sigh..the government does VERY little. Corporations do things FOR the government with government oversight often by people who used to work in the same corporations they have oversight for.

      Giving it to the "Government" to do is not taking corporations out of the picture.

      It's like having the discussion concerning the "private" sector launching manned space vehicles...as if NASA did it without the private sector to begin with.

    20. Re:More government! by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The solution is more government!

      No, the solution is complete deregulation. If achieved, the free market fairy will grant the commercial operators the wish of taking as much profit as efficiently as possible and, if something wrong happens, just do nothing ('cause that would go against their duty to shareholders).
      You see, in spite of still existing regulation, Tepco is already heralding the new age.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    21. Re:More government! by c0lo · · Score: 1

      In Quebec we get steamed hot dogs but we get a filet mignon bill.

      And you still complain? Then what will you do when Quebec runs out of steam?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    22. Re:More government! by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      Then clean it up, charge them for the work and jail the heads of the corporations that failed in such a dangerous area.

    23. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlike the bailouts to corporate entities in the US, radiation actually has real world consequences, not the collapse of some hair brained greedy economic system we pinned together and keep propping up (which I'm all for collapse and restructuring). If the Japanese government need intervene, Tepco should be forced to pay all of the expenses to the point of full asset liquidation if needed.

    24. Re:More government! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having some direct experience with both the culture and government of Japan and of the nuclear industry, I can say [opine] that the Japanese government is completely incapable of handling the task.

      If you ask me, I say send the US NRC over to Japan to take the situation over and train Japan's NRC to operate in the same way as the US NRC.

      The US NRC is a royal pain in the ass. But they are that for a very good reason. And believe me when I tell you, they aren't just up in the utilities' faces, they are up in EVERYONE connected faces. The Japanese regulatory agency will ONLY communicate with the Japanese utilities and not the manufacturers of equipment, not the people who did construction or planning or any of it. So for the Japanese regulatory agency to ignore those other factors? It convinces me they aren't prepared to see a much larger picture when it comes to nuclear safety.

      I am told this aspect of the Japanese nuclear regulatory agency is changing, but I'll believe it when I see it.

      Meanwhile, the Japanese habit of never saying more than they should and always holding back information leads me to believe it's actually worse than the mainstream media will say and likely MUCH worse.

      Nuclear safety isn't just local. It's not just national. It's a global concern. And if some group of people internationally were to say "hey, this is a global concern. Let's make a global nuclear regulatory agency" I would actually agree to the idea simply because the danger knows no borders. And believe me when I say it's not easy for me to be in favor of -- I am against global government in general. Completely.

    25. Re:More government! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Government is great at doing things that aren't profitable (or that no one wants to do). Other than that, Government has no reason to be in that market. Good example; the USPS. Every year the price of first-class mail goes up, but the service goes down. They talking about pulling weekend services accross the board. First class price changes almost weekly, so they came out with the "forever" stamp, a stamp with no price, and they're already talking about doing away with that becuase they're talking about raising the rate again; its too much of a moving target and they lose too much money with a priceless stamp. Finally the USPS lost billions lat year. Meanwhile UPS, FedEx, etc run circles around the USPS, are highly efficient, and highly profitable. But only the Fed can deliver first class door-to-door, they have a monopoly on that.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    26. Re:More government! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Way too late for that. TEPCO is already virtually state owned. If the government hadn't bailed them out people wouldn't have been able to sue them for compensation. Plus the government has been paying benefits to those who lose their jobs and homes around the plant, and for extra healthcare costs, and a whole long list of other stuff.

      Nuclear accident costs are always socialized, just like its development was in the first place. It isn't just Japan, in the US plants have $10bn of insurance by law but if you stuck an extra zero on that it would be a fraction of the cost of Fukushima.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the popular "less government" argument is more about optimizing government involvement for "my" personal interests and little to do with the size of government. "Screw the rest of the society, I want government to set my interests above all" except the figure in this picture is not the bulk of the population but small subset of wealthy members.

    28. Re:More government! by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      You're right. Of course, without the government, we wouldn't have roads or the internet but I'm sure those things don't matter to you.

      Just as much as the government is dependent on the private sector, the private sector is dependent on the government. It goes both ways, skippy.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    29. Re:More government! by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 1

      So the whole time BT was saying "oh, it's only a little oil" they knew it was a load of crap

      BP, I think!

      British Telecom may be a rubbish company, but they've never polluted the Gulf Of Mexico (as far as I know)

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
    30. Re:More government! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Commercial business can never be and has never been trustworthy when it comes to public safety. Everything from coal mining, gas/oil drilling, "fracking" all the way to nuclear energy requires safety and EVERY industry, when left to their own, has shown they will favor cost cutting/profit increasing over safety. EVERY time. We've seen coal miners killed. We've seen the "strange earthquakes" around areas where fracking has been going on. We've seen the whole BP oil spill issue. We saw Chernobyl (a name which literally means "nuclear disaster" to most people now) and now we are experiencing Fukushima.

      It's all safety related and it's all because people didn't want to spend enough money on safety. Keep in mind that there is ANOTHER nuclear plant no too far from Fukushima which survived the same tsunami specifically because the wall was higher and stronger. It wasn't because they never expected a tsunami so large. They were advised to build as large in Fukushima as well. They didn't... or so I'm told.

      Nuclear safety. There is NOTHING more important. Nothing.

    31. Re:More government! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      LOL. You are right, of course ... apparently my fingers decided to do something else.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    32. Re: More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      considering how many people died when we privatized and deregulated a single fucking thing why should it be a surprise?

    33. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The real question is does the government have the expertise to carry out this task better than the company which operates the plant? The answer might very well be yes, but it could just as easily be no. Perhaps the real answer is that they don't, but the company cannot be trusted either. To me that would point to a solution requiring increased oversight with perhaps the government bring in technical experts to assist in that oversight.
      Should the government take over I would suspect all that does is transfer the cost to the taxpayer and replace the corporation with government as the entity that all of the contractors report too. As well as allowing said contractors to increase their price, since in my experience it always cost more for the government to do anything.
      So I think more government might be the answer, but only more government oversight, not them stepping in to let the company bail.

    34. Re:More government! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No, but they can hire those folks and have motivation to do so.

      There are no "folks" to hire. Government is not magic. They do not have a team of super-smart 007 agents ready to pounce on every problem. If they did, they would have used them fix the Japanese economy, which has been mismanaged so badly that it makes the Italians look competent. The half-life of tritium is not going to change by government decree, and there is no secret government issued super glue that is going to fix the leaking water tanks.

      The severity of the problems at Fukushima are being publicized slowly, but the decisions that caused those problems were made either before the accident, or immediately after it. The government was either responsible or complicit in most of those decisions.

    35. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given Fukushima's current problems, we might have an entire Pacific Ocean's worth of steam before this is all over.

      I, for one, will have hot dogs ready.

    36. Re:More government! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      There are no engineers who would accept a higher salary for this project? What universe do you live in?

      Sure you can't change what has happened but you can stop making stupid decisions.

    37. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing here is that BP and TEPCO are the only groups who actually have a clue how to clean their own messes up. Despite the drama of a "level 3 serious incident", I don't see evidence that TEPCO should be removed from the clean up of the Fukushima site or the surroundings.

      Your choice to compare the Fukushima clean up to the Deepwater Horizon spill is telling. While there was considerable incompetence and criminal actions going into the causes, that oil spill was competently handled after the fact. The US government wouldn't have done any better.

    38. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not at all. I want the government to limit itself to doing the things that it is directed to do in the Constitution. I am not wealthy, I do alright and would do better if the government would stop spending my money to do things it is not mandated to do. If wanting that is the government "setting my interest over all", so be it.

    39. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 0

      Of course, without the government, we wouldn't have roads or the internet but I'm sure those things don't matter to you.

      Without government we wouldn't even have the concept of Godwin's law. You kill six million Jews this one time and they never let you forget it!

    40. Re:More government! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Totally irrelevant comment. Regulation in rail transportation is a federal responsability. I hope you aren't Canadian, neither Quebecer, otherwise you are showing how ignorant you are.

      Then, to make my comment about more or less government. I believe it is not to Japan's governement to take over TEPCO and clean the place. Japan's governement responsability is to monitor closely the process, make regulations, enforce them and make sure TEPCO is doing ITS job.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    41. Re:More government! by Vaphell · · Score: 1

      dude, did you really give Chernobyl as an example of corporate screwup? I mean really? And do you really think that in state owned coal mines in the Soviet block there were no accidents ever? By that logic deadly accidents in military are unheard of and I am pretty sure that's not the case.

    42. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite true. Initially corporations were set up for very limited purposes, and they are the creature of government. Their purpose was specifically to limit liability, initially so that debtors could not go after the private property of investors, a common practice before the creation of corporations. Unfortunately the limits on corporate activity was dropped in favor of incorporating lots of corporations so that the government could collect more funds in taxes and incorporating fees. Then corporations figures out they could engage in regulatory capture and the whole system has gone to hell.

    43. Re: More government! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      The accident is not due to deregulation. The train driver didn't secure the brakes. You can regulate and over-regulate and do whatever you want, if the guy responsible to secure the brakes fails to do his job, you are screwed.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    44. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      their assets are liquifying ... and flowing into our food.

    45. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Commercial business can never be and has never been trustworthy when it comes to public safety.

      Compared to who? Government hasn't been trustworthy either. I see you mentioned Chernobyl which was government run.

      It's all safety related and it's all because people didn't want to spend enough money on safety.

      What makes you think more money would have spent effectively? There's so much misunderstanding about what was going on with Fukushima. The reactors were being decommissioned. Then they weren't because the next generation which was going to replace Fukushima was canceled all at once. This shuffling of future plans probably contributed since why should one build a higher seawall for nuclear reactors that are to be decommissioned?

      Keep in mind that there is ANOTHER nuclear plant no too far from Fukushima which survived the same tsunami specifically because the wall was higher and stronger.

      No, it survived a smaller tsunami. It would have been inundated if it had been subject to what hit Fukushima Daiichi.

      Nuclear safety. There is NOTHING more important. Nothing.

      Yea, I'm sure empty slogan ranks pretty up on that list of important things. So how many deaths is nuclear safety worth?

    46. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...except that UPS, FedEx, etc all dump their deliveries onto the USPS for unprofitable rural routes (of which there are many in my state). The USPS has the Constitutional obligation to deliver everywhere, not just where it's profitable, hence fitting into your category of what the government should be involved in. Plus, it's hard to be profitable when any cost-cutting mechanism you want to employ has to be run by a body of people as dysfunctional as the US Congress.

    47. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      experience it always cost more for the government to do anything.

      disagree HARD.
      Imagine what ould happen if the government was not responsible for roads. there would be none, and it would be a frigging nightmare to transport anything or just even getting to work.

    48. Re:More government! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There are no engineers who would accept a higher salary for this project?

      There is no secret team on the bench. The most qualified people are already working on it. All that would change would be the bank account their paychecks are drawn from.

      Sure you can't change what has happened but you can stop making stupid decisions.

      If history is any guide, the decisions would become even stupider. In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez accident, government pressure forced Exxon to divert limited personnel from using booms and skimmers on ships at sea (where they were not visible to the TV cameras) to the beaches, where they wasted their time wiping oil from individual rocks with paper towels. The government also pressured Exxon to use chemical dispersant that likely caused more harm that the oil itself. Governments have a long history of turning any crisis into a PR opportunity. Decisions are made based on political calculations rather than technical merit.

    49. Re:More government! by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      Of course, without the government, we wouldn't have roads or the internet

      I don't accept that as fact. Linking to new markets and simplifying and lowering cost of supply chains would still be in many peoples interest and with all the tax dollars still in their pocket many might opt to fund the construction. It would be slower and probably more chaotic... organic in nature. There would probably be more toll roads, but that's just paying for it differently and more consciously. I would say we probably wouldn't have as "grand" a road system, but the trade off would be more localized economies, less dependence on oil, fewer greenhouse less and fewer wars for oil. Those seem like values the people who like government also tend to like.

    50. Re:More government! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The most qualified people in the world for this all work for TEPCO? Excuse me if based on current performance I find that hard to believe.

      I agree that was a terrible move. What should have happened was both. Then Exxon should have been fined nearly into the ground. Instead they still have not really cleaned up.

    51. Re:More government! by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Pretty big assumptions there considering history is profoundly against you. Contrary to popular belief, there are somethings that are better when the government does them. I know that's a bitter pill to swallow but it's true.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    52. Re:More government! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And believe me when I say it's not easy for me to be in favor of -- I am against global government in general. Completely.

      So you probably want a global insurance pool, not a regulatory agency. The market forces would actually support this - potential payouts are so large that a global pool may be necessary.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    53. Re:More government! by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

      that oil spill was competently handled after the fact

      Oh, you mean like this?? Or this?

      How about this:

      In July 2013, the discovery of a 40,000 pound tar mat near East Grand Terre, Louisiana prompted the closure of waters to commercial fishing

      Sorry, but if you believe what BP has been telling you, you are gravely mistaken.

      If by 'completely handled' you mean done badly, incompletely, and we get lied about it sure .. if you mean actually remediating the damage from it, well, you're either delusional or on the payroll.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    54. Re:More government! by MickLinux · · Score: 2

      I'd say that this is more of the privatize - nationalize cycle that is favored by big business.

      Specifically, the big businesses -- through media shills and lobbyists they have hired -- request the nationalization of their competitors and regulation of the industry that is designed to prevent competition. In turn, when a government, loaded down with such dross, becomes top-heavy, then the big business requests privatization of the profitable sectors, at rock-bottom prices.

      Happens all the time.

      The real version of this is "steal from the small folks, give to the big folks. Tie them down, then repeat."

      I'd favor Japan taking it over-- if they completely nationalized the company, fired the management and legally prohibited them from working in management again, and nationalized the majority of their property [say, in excess of the 50%ile mark]. Alternatively, they can open TEPCO and their managers and stockholders to complete liability. Alternatively, they can say to the managers and stockholders of the time when the mess happened, "clean your mess up, no matter what the cost, or go to jail."

      Most of which violates the rule of law. But so does the nationalize / privatize cycle. And so does the nonenforcement of environmental and safety regulations.

      Which leads to what they *will* do instead: nationalize, privatize. nationalize, privatize.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    55. Re: More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, Idiot, you can reintroduce the regulation that requires two engineers to double-check each others work like they used to do before de-regulation.

    56. Re:More government! by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      The government also pressured Exxon to use chemical dispersant that likely caused more harm that the oil itself.

      Do you have a source for that?

    57. Re:More government! by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I love the idea that "government" can just swoop in and fix things it has no expertise on. Government's channel money. Government's don't even do their own jobs effectively...why in the world would you want the government to "take over" a mess like this.

      You want the government to throw more money at the problem...fine. If this reflects the opinions of...anybody I sincerely fear for the future of the US.

      --
      "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    58. Re:More government! by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      There is no secret team on the bench. The most qualified people are already working on it. All that would change would be the bank account their paychecks are drawn from.

      For the sake of the argument, lets assume that this is true. The thing is that right now they are acting in the best interest of the small group of TEPCO investors. If government hires them, they will be acting in the best interest of the government and -- presumably -- public. This is a critical difference.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    59. Re:More government! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The government also pressured Exxon to use chemical dispersant that likely caused more harm that the oil itself.

      Do you have a source for that?

      No, because I chose my words poorly. The dispersants were certainly not (as I stated) worse than the oil spill. What I should have said was that dispersants likely made the situation somewhat worse. They are harsh, environmentally damaging chemicals. They make the problem look better by breaking up the oil slicks, but don't actually remove the oil from the environment. The proper role for government is this case should not have been try micromanage the cleanup by steering it toward publicity stunts. Instead they should have regulated the industry properly, and never allowed single-hulled tankers to operate in American waters in the first place.

    60. Re:More government! by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      They do accomplish some things "better", certainly for a short time. As with most monopolies that efficiency tends to wane, only the government doesn't fail and get out of the way for a newer efficient model. This progress also has costs, as I stated. Using "the government does things better" model the solution to symptoms is more government intervention, such as in my example. We now have an efficient cost to cost system of road that is, according to many, a big factor in destroying our environment. Now the government is subsidizing corporations, many of them failing to control the problem. Meanwhile subsidizing oil prices by securing our supply with our army. But hey, government made Walmart and it's cheap goods possible, so clearly it is a win for society as a whole.

      I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but society is really complicated, and predicting and controlling the outcomes is hardly scientifically measurable in its success.

      I've made big assumptions and so have you. Rather than provide more examples or explain how I was completely wrong in my assessment of your simplified generalization that there are currently roads and the government made them do government is good, You made a blanket statement that history is against me with no example.

      Don't pretend that I am part of some deluded mass stumbling through life with a blind dedication to some vague unthoughtful hatred of government. Our system of government is based upon popular belief; it's existence and action in growing amounts of our lives is the antithesis of your statement that I am speaking for the masses. My starting point in my world view simple starts with a higher value to personal freedom and higher cost to the it's oppression. I suppose I should step back and say there are things in history that government does better: oppression, slavery, and slaughter. Though, I suppose your definition of "better" depends which side if the incendiary bomb you are on.

    61. Re:More government! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I don't think we need "medical insurance" for general use in the first place.

      1. More money should be spent on prevention and better food standards in the US. We have some REALLY crappy standards.
      2. Once prevention and standards are better addressed, the need for "constant" medical attention for so many will be gone leaving mostly weird cases, child birth and random emergencies.
      3. Once demand for medical care drops the medical insurance industry shrinks to what it once was.
      4. On top of that, the pharmaceutical industry would also shrink and their patents would expire without being replaced with something newer and more dangerous.

      People like to think they live better lives because of increased medical care and technology. I changed two things in my life have have only gotten sick once in the past 25 years. ONCE and it lasted about 8-12 hours... (I slept it off so I don't know how long it really lasted.) What'd I change? I stopped drinking milk and I stopped being too focused on being "sanitary" all over the place. Suddenly my immune system was doing its job and I was happier and more energetic. Also, I stay away from too much corn and sources of extreme carbohydrates. (That's what I mean by prevention and better standards.) (Isn't it weird that we shove more corn down people's throats than any other place on earth and our diabetes rates are also out of control? I know... correlation/causation. Still. I avoid it when I know it's there and I'm healthier because of it.)

      One of the big problems we have in the US is that people don't want to control their own lives. They just don't. They feel much more comfortable being a victim and blaming and complaining. Worse is people somehow feel empowered because they have the right to complain despite having less right or ability to do anything meaningful about it. And they go on eating what they eat which, incidentally, is NOT what we ate 25 years ago; not even close and living by standards and ideals created in the 80s when living in debt stopped being a sin.

      Yes. People always look at me like I'm crazy when I say I don't spend money I don't have. But our debt-financed lifestyles are at the core of our problems and that includes the medical industry. When we are spending someone else's money, it's a lot easier to spend. People don't feel a connection between what they spend on credit and what they have to pay back. And people don't feel a connection between what they pay to insurance companies and what they (don't) get back. And people have been taking the social security scam up the ass for decades and decades. (I will be lucky to get back 15% of what I paid in to social security...LUCKY) We have absolutely horrible and wasteful systems in place -- things people have given up complaining about. I don't enter debt contracts easily. I don't. I have less stuff yet still more "stuff I don't need." Life's just not so bad as people think without all the excess.

      We need less industry because industry serves its interests first and foremost.

    62. Re: More government! by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      Oh right... cause THAT will always happen. Ever actually work in a union? Ever been a Brakeman? Ever watch an Engineer sleeping with his feet up on the console while riding deadhead in the 2nd locomotive who's actually supposed to be watching the rails and looking for hotbox bearings on corners? People fuck up. Employees get complacent. They break rules. There's no track-nazi following them around checking off lists. One brakeman lining the wrong siding can cause a world of hurt. A badly set brake can feel engaged and yet slip 10 minutes later. Best efforts can still result in horrible results.... If you decided to regulate that people make mistakes and break the rules you might just have regulations that actually work. There's a saying in the railroad industry. Heavy metal always wins. And you call him an idiot. I shake my head. Fuck, what a comment, AC.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    63. Re:More government! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The free market will take care of problems like this... ...probably by building far away from it...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    64. Re:More government! by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      Well, if they do take over the cleanup, they should certainly keep the people who work in the plant on the job so that they have experts on hand, although bringing in more people to provide additional oversight would be a good idea.

    65. Re:More government! by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      Then the government needs to take charge at the top, bring people in to work on the field and make sure things are being done correctly, and keep the current experts on the payroll, then send BP and/or TEPCO the bill for actually doing things thoroughly and correctly instead of half-assing it to save money. Having caused damage to other peoples' property with these spills and leaks, the companies that are to blame are now liable for that, and they've shown repeatedly that they can't be trusted to clean things up on their own.

    66. Re:More government! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      What makes you think more money would have spent effectively?

      Legislation and criminal charges would be a good start, along with specific goals and measurement criteria for various preventative measures.

      The reactors were being decommissioned. Then they weren't because the next generation which was going to replace Fukushima was canceled all at once. This shuffling of future plans probably contributed since why should one build a higher seawall for nuclear reactors that are to be decommissioned?

      Well the answer to "why" is to prevent this very situation. Since it wasn't being decommissioned they should have built a higher seawall, there is no acceptable excuse for this. TEPCO are, as the article described, incompetent and proven incapable of running a Nuclear power plant as evidenced by the failure of TEPCO to follow the operating parameters as set down by the manufacturers. TEPCO have already demonstrated they have no will to run a Nuclear Reactor competently and the evidence is mounting that they have no will to resolve the issue using all available resources (including government) to resolve the situation to performance parameters acceptable to the community.

      The occurrence of the earthquake and Tsunami are irrelevant as the reactor survived both. What it did not survive was the failure of TEPCO to operate the plant correctly before, during and after the disaster.

      There's so much misunderstanding about what was going on with Fukushima.

      Your citing of BP demonstrates you have not examined all the available evidence for Deep Water Horizon. This suggests you maintain a level of dogmatic skepticism for industrial accidents as a function of the inquiry mode that dominates your thinking. You are converting a memory of failure into one of success concerning TEPCO's incompetence suggesting analytical traits are not a dominant characteristic when you evaluate information.

      It's not a criticism, just an observation that you are probably better at big picture stuff than the details, which are opaque to you and mostly not required. This makes you prone to the very kind of misunderstanding you cite.

      So how many deaths is nuclear safety worth?

      Yours, because if it was you or someone you care about, then you would be bleating like sheep to slaughter about Nuclear safety. However since the danger is distant and crosses generations it is not something you are capable as recognizing as danger so, because of that, you have no incentive for capacity to understand what the danger is.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    67. Re:More government! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You can't retroactively legislate penalties for things that were done in the past. See the Gulf oil spill. You give an industry a get out of jail free card this is exactly the sort of situation they're going to use it in. And before you get all upset, that sort of legislation IS important. If there had been no cap on damages BP would have gone belly up before the first week of that leak and there would have been no one left to sue, or cap the well. If you drive Tepco out of business with fines, then there's no Tepco to nail to the cross down the road. If you fix the plant for them, when you sue them for damages they'll just say the government screwed up the cleanup.

    68. Re:More government! by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Where in the U.S. Constitution do you see an obligation for the USPS to deliver everywhere?

      The USPS isn't even mandated by the U.S. Constitution. One of the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8 is

      The Congress shall have Power [...] To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

      Note there is no requirement that Congress exercise this power - any more than

      The Congress shall have Power [...] To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

      requires Congress to borrow money if the Federal government had no debt.

      As well, the USPS does not deliver to every address. I don't recall the criteria they use, but if you live in an area that is too sparsely populated the USPS won't deliver to your property and you may be required to go quite some distance to pick up your mail from another location.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    69. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ok, where's your evidence for your assertion? I glanced through the links and while there was some complaining and a little grandstanding, I didn't actually see any evidence of incompetence on BP's part.

    70. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Then the government needs to take charge at the top, bring people in to work on the field and make sure things are being done correctly

      What makes you think that didn't happen? Everything I've read on either accident indicates that both TEPCO and BP were on tight leashes.

      then send BP and/or TEPCO the bill for actually doing things thoroughly and correctly instead of half-assing it to save money

      The respective governments don't have a clue what is "thoroughly and correctly". I don't see any evidence that the respective governments would have handled this any better than the businesses did.

    71. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well the answer to "why" is to prevent this very situation. Since it wasn't being decommissioned they should have built a higher seawall, there is no acceptable excuse for this.

      Sure, there is. This is 2013. It's not 2008. Get into your time machine and provide that absence of an excuse. In the meantime, hindsight != foresight. All this thundering about "no acceptable excuse" ignores that in the absence of foreknowledge of the earthquake, it would have happened anyway, because as I noted, the plant was being decommission. There's no case to be made for spending a lot of money to prevent a small chance of failure.

    72. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 1

      However since the danger is distant and crosses generations it is not something you are capable as recognizing as danger so

      I go off of evidence. Show the evidence for this alleged danger. I get really tired of people ranting about "distant dangers" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones. You just haven't shown that there's a long term risk to consider here.

    73. Re: More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh right... cause THAT will always happen. Ever actually work in a union? Ever been a Brakeman? Ever watch an Engineer sleeping with his feet up on the console while riding deadhead in the 2nd locomotive who's actually supposed to be watching the rails and looking for hotbox bearings on corners?

      People fuck up. Employees get complacent. They break rules. There's no track-nazi following them around checking off lists. One brakeman lining the wrong siding can cause a world of hurt. A badly set brake can feel engaged and yet slip 10 minutes later. Best efforts can still result in horrible results.... If you decided to regulate that people make mistakes and break the rules you might just have regulations that actually work. There's a saying in the railroad industry. Heavy metal always wins.

      And you call him an idiot. I shake my head. Fuck, what a comment, AC.

      Rage much? Hard drives fail, that's why I keep my key data on raid 1. The GP AC suggests the same be done with the train driver, so that if one screws up, the other has a chance to catch it. You can debate the cost optimization all you want, but redundancy mitigates the original risk.

    74. Re: More government! by ttucker · · Score: 1

      Our anonymous friend would propose then that we need a third person to watch the first two, and then a committee of three or four more to supervise the supervisor. When an accident inevitably happens, it will be everybody's fault, and in that regard it will be nobody's fault. The train would crash, and not a single person would have done anything wrong.

    75. Re:More government! by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      As a West Coast resident, I really hope that's exactly what happens. I shudder when I think of the possible consequences to our food chain in the long term.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    76. Re: More government! by Kleen13 · · Score: 2

      Sigh... The real world doesn't work that way. It's really that simple. As long as there is a human element involved there is room for mistakes, for incompetence, for that one guy that was supposed to check the other guy's work but didn't because it's been a long day and he's tired and his partner always got it right before, or they've never worked together, or he's a rookie, or...whatever. I get what you're saying, but I suspect that you haven't worked in a field that has grave consequences for mistakes. Through training and discipline you're able to minimize risk factors, but at some point the stars align and something you didn't anticipate happens. Look at Corrections and early parole. The PO reviews the case, makes a decision to release to the community, the parole board reviews that, approves, and out the con goes. How many times have we all hard about recidivism (in some cases really nasty stuff) where someone re-offends and ends right back in the slam? Regulation helps, but enforcement has to come through audits and response. The 1st is usually random and the 2nd is after the fact. How does that stop the Boogyman from showing up?

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    77. Re:More government! by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Well that would be the instant death of the Nuclear industry then.

    78. Re:More government! by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Hip replacement, heart surgery, cancer treatments, etc etc etc.

      PS. I'm willing to entertain the notion of the benefits of paleo-like diets ... but blaming so much of the current generation's problem on carbs in general is just plain revisionist, my great grand parents already had bread and potatoes as staple food. What has changed is things like salt, sugar intake (soft drinks), trans fats, overeating etc ... if anything the percentage of calories from carbs might have decreased due to increased meat consumption.

    79. Re:More government! by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Why do you hate Freedom?

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    80. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "who are used to officials that normally exaggerate problems, but it was not misleading to the Japanese public, who just assume that whatever officials say, the reality is ten times worse."

              Exaggerate isn't the word, mislead is and it isn't the officials doing that it's the media. As for Fukushima the reality was obviously brought home to the Japanese public by the reactors blowing up on national television!!!

    81. Re:More government! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Not just carbs, but incompatible carbs. Real sugar is better than HFCS or even eating processed grains. They aren't all that compatible with our surgar processing organs and lead to strain on them. Another effect is those foods take longer to trigger our satisfaction response signaling us to stop eating which leads to overeating.

      Cancer will reduce when our food intake becomes better... also as people learn to avoid other problems. Hip replacement and others are under the category of weird cases. They are, relatively speaking, rather rare. But also, some problems associated with bodily wear and tear? I have mixed feelings about those in the first place. The whole point of being healthier is managing things better. Being too sterile leads to a weaker immune system. A large mix of carbs and fats lead to choleterol which leads to heart problems. Lowering carbs reduces strain on sugar processing organs. (Carbs from fruits and real sugars are better because the body processes them more easily and more quickly)

      Still, industry wants what is best for industry's bottom line, not what's best for people. It doesn't matter than industry is run by people. It kind of makes it worse because competition forces a game of chicken among them where the first one who makes a healthy or humanitarian change in the way they do things loses because the profits and prices of the others will attract more buyers -- people don't shop with conscience. They shop with as few dollars as possible. Only government can force quality changes on industry without harming competition too badly since (in theory) what affects one, affects them all.

      Seriously and honestly though, I didn't stop drinking milk because I thought it would make me not sick any longer. My brother recommended it because my allergies resulted in a lot of mucous and he informed me stopping milk reduces mucous. It did. And other benefits were merely a surprise. And on top of that, my seasonal allergies essentially disappeared! Weird right? It was only later that I learned about the antibiotics in common homogenized bovine milk. And it explained a lot as well.

    82. Re:More government! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, hiding the safety manuals for dangerous chemicals and spraying people in the face with those same substances from aircraft sounds competent to me. Fuck off.

    83. Re: More government! by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      The proof is in the pudding -- did this catastrophe happen before or after the system was deregulated and the second engineer was removed? It's nice to talk about the "real world" -- perhaps we should base real-world discussions on, I don't know, the real world?

    84. Re: More government! by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      Further to this, Japan is known for its tight regulatory systems. If this can happen there, then how long until it is repeated in other nuclear plants in countries with weaker regulation? To me, this that nuclear is economically infeasable -- I don't know much Fukushima has cost, but if it's $100B like you say, how many years' investment in renewables does this represent? Perhaps it suggests that we're not putting our money and effort in an optimal place?

    85. Re: More government! by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't change my point. Tell me how there wasn't and isn't room for human error in either argument. Your point is merely convenient. Nice having a non-AC commenting btw,

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    86. Re: More government! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Ever engage in histrionics?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    87. Re: More government! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2
      In a truly unregulated Libertarian Utopia, we will neeed only a person who calls themselves an engineer. We will trust them as such, because we know the free market silently selects for the best and most competent. Thrilling to watch in action, without regulations to stand in the way.

      If the engineer is uncompetent, he will cause the train to crash, perhaps killing hundreds of people. Not ot worry though, bcause the free market will kick into action, and the survivors and relatives of the survivors will select for different railways. If these railways have poor engineers, with similar fatality rates, the process will continue untl the free and unregulated market gives us a competent railroad, staffed by those engineers who were not so incompetent as to kill all their passengers.

      I don't know why those stupid socialists cannot understand the infallibility of this.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    88. Re: More government! by ttucker · · Score: 1

      Hm, I was trying to make the point that the company should have hired a competent engineer in the first place, and that no amount of thought by committee would substitute for that. For the most part, that is exactly what railroads do in the United States. Becoming an engineer is an exceedingly rigorous process, and remaining one is the same. There is a federal license involved, but only having one of those is about like applying to the job and just calling yourself an engineer. Railroads have a huge monetary interest in trains never crashing, and staff is hired accordingly, before accidents happen.

      You should really read a bit more text on the difference between liberty and oppression than Ayn Rand. Your ignorance is chilling. Arguments based on such ignorance typically appear to be straw man at best (present a mindless Objectivist as characteristic Libertarian, lambaste Libertarianisim, rinse, repeat), but I suspect that you consider this argument to be in earnest. Would you like to change somebody's mind instead of preaching to your proverbial choir? Spend some time learning the difference between Objectivisim and Libertarianisim, and how they overlap in some trivial areas, but mostly are totally different things. Then you can criticize each philosophy separately, in an honest way.

    89. Re:More government! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Again, I see no evidence for the assertions made. Where is that evidence?

    90. Re:More government! by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      Before coming to terms with what's happening now, you need to understand the history. Look at the historical evidence yourself and then consider what is happening now. Photographic and other evidence

    91. Re:More government! by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Even the notoriosly inefficient Soviet government managed to contain the Chernobyl accident much quicker than Tepco has. The government has access to powers that come handy in an emergency such as this.

    92. Re:More government! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what this incoherent ranting is.

    93. Re:More government! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well the answer to "why" is to prevent this very situation. Since it wasn't being decommissioned they should have built a higher seawall, there is no acceptable excuse for this.

      Sure, there is. This is 2013. It's not 2008. Get into your time machine and provide that absence of an excuse. In the meantime, hindsight != foresight. All this thundering about "no acceptable excuse" ignores that in the absence of foreknowledge of the earthquake, it would have happened anyway, because as I noted, the plant was being decommission. There's no case to be made for spending a lot of money to prevent a small chance of failure.

      Even the small chance of a massive failure?

      I go off of evidence. The evidence for this danger was in geological science and historical data. I get really tired of people ranting about "hindsight != foresight" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones.

      Your replies highlight contradiction. On one hand you assert that I must do risk analysis for a disaster, that should never have happened, with such long and far reaching consequences and on the other assert that TEPCO, who have many Nuclear reactors, could not have possibly foreseen this occurring otherwise why would they take such a massive risk. Whilst risk analysis is not my core profession it's hard to believe that a Monte Carlo analysis, for example, didn't reveal the current state as a potential consequences of a lack of action on the seawall or backup-generators. The implication is that TEPCO didn't perform any risk analysis or, they did and just didn't deem it neccessary to take any action on the seawall and the back-up generators. Either one would have prevented this situation, ergo NONFEASANCE ergo criminal negligence. As I have said even after decommissioning, the reactor still requires seawall and backup generators for another decade to prevent the same situation.

      And I don't need a time machine, the science was available well before 2008, the evidence suggest it just wasn't used, so even if I did have a time machine the current state of affairs suggests I would have been ignored as this is simply an example of TEPCO not being prepared to mitigate the risk they faced operating the reactor. "Thundering" - well not really. Whilst I understand basic risk analysis, I also understand the operating parameters of the machine and, the basic biology of the consequences. That's why there is no acceptable excuse. GE told TEPCO how to run the reactors. They didn't do it and now the west coast of the US and the entire Pacific Ocean will carry the radio isotopes in increasing volumes until this situation is permanenty resolved.

      And the longer it takes the worse it will be which is why we need not only Japanese Government intervention but assistance from every nation that shares the pacfic ocean as this is no longer just a Japanese issue.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    94. Re:More government! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I go off of evidence. Show the evidence for this alleged danger. I get really tired of people ranting about "distant dangers" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones. You just haven't shown that there's a long term risk to consider here.

      Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

      If there is no danger why do anything at all? So there must be some danger otherwise why not just bull doze the entire thing into the ocean?

      You're probably not aware that radioactive elements accumulate in the food chain like some other dangerous chemicals like Poly Chloride Biphenyls. However radioactive isotopes also analogue a variety of elements that living creatures need to survive. Compounding this further they are emmiters of alpha, beta and, gamma radiation at various energetic levels.

      So, pu-239 presents to the metabolism as a micro-nutrient. In Plutonium's case it presents as Iron to a metabolism. In the ocean a *lack* of iron is what stops metabolic processes, so Iron is readily absorbed ergo Plutonium is readily absorbed. So a small sea creature absorbs the plutonium and it gets eaten by steadily larger creatures, like a fish and then it's in the human food chain. Considering the size and variety of the human food chain, this is inevitable more than once.

      This is the main reason to arrest the flow of Fukushima cooling water into the ocean, as plutonium is only one of the elements that it contains that has this property - but I'll follow with this single radioisotope as an example.

      As we've discussed previously, a single micro gram of plutonium is a fatal dose to a human being when ingested. As more isotopes are released into the environment the likelihood of exposure increases. The amount of time it takes to move through the food chain introduces a random amount of time before eventually ingested - by an actual person. From there a gestation time passes, like the flu is approximately 7 days, cancer is approximately 6 years. So even if someone ingests something immediately from Fukushima you still have a 6 year wait before you notice aything wrong.

      Depending on the radionuclide, there are different cancers, radon 220 that causes lung cancer, or radium 226 that causes bone cancers, strontium 90, americium, iodine 131, cesium 137, the list goes on. The exposure vectors are many and varied. What has protected us is the likelihood of encountering one was low. Everyday this continues the possibility increases.

      For airborne fallout, say just like TMI, the jetstream was the perfect carrier to the west coast of the US ensuring good coverage of land based produce. A cow eats radioactive grass, accumulates, say, strontium 90 in the milk, the milk is made into chocolate and you eat it in one of those multi-colored candy covered chocolate treats you so enjoy. Do you enjoy sushi? You can be exposed one or multiple times and after you die cremation makes the radioisotope airborne fallout amd decay allows it back into the watertable.

      As for the risk, it's somewhere above 0% that some people will be exposed. However using an established case of Chernobyl. 5% of a 160 ton Nuclear reactor core that was about to be refueled - let's call it 100 tons, that's 5 tons of radioactive core into the atmosphere. At conservative estimates thats 5000,000,000,000 fatal doses. If we accept that an extremely conservative estimate of 1% of this makes it into the food chain via bio-accumulation and of that a conservative estimate of 1% of people are exposed and a conservative 1% of those exposed actually get some sort of fatal cancer that's 5,000,000 fatalities.

      The difference is Chernobyl was land locked, but Fukushima is right next to the ocean and radio isotopes are finding their way into the Pacific ocean everyday. Fukushima is a slower disaster than Chernobyl, the difference is that the risk of a plutonium fire exists - which is why so much water is being used

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    95. Re:More government! by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      Going back to school and learning to read is an option. Have you considered it? The source is quite clear to me...

    96. Re:More government! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of not being able to read; it's a matter of reading clownshoes logic with no basis in reality and barely a fixed basis in any coherent form of bullshit. It's like the words have meaning, but the meaning is disconnected from anything sane and sensible.

    97. Re:More government! by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1
      I don't get what you don't get.
      1. 1. What about an "Israeli contractor" stocked by Mossad taking over the plant is unclear?
      2. 2. How do you explain the total explosion of an offline reactor? There is pretty graphic evidence of a major explosion, but supposedly no explosives?
      3. 3. Where did the Tsunami come from, since it's clear from the evidence that it was not from an earthquake. At least not from an earthquake that was supposed to have been 9.1 on the Richter scale. Do you have any idea what 9.1 means? And that's the simpliied version. 9.1 is more than 3 times 8.8 on the log10 Richter Scale and almost 800 Megatons! How can a single building remain standing, undamaged, when such an event occurs, yet none seems to even have cracks?!

      and many more questions to be answered, but most conveniently ignored by the ignorati-media...

    98. Re:More government! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      How do you explain the thermonuclear-scale explosion of Krakatoa? I mean ridiculous, sea water running into hot lava causing a steam release that detonated the island? Everyone knows steam is harmless. It's not like nuclear piles are hot and could have caused a pressurized steam build-up in a reactor.

      And of course, you're right. The government can create earthquakes with their magic space beams that they got from unicorn aliens.

  2. But . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    But this goes against two oh-so-fashionable Slashdot hipster propaganda points:

    1) The government is always more incompetent than private business!!1

    2) Nuclear power cannot harm people!!1

    Posting anonymously because the hipster libertarians have a lot of mod points.

    1. Re:But . . . by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Hipster libertarians? I get that that both groups are unlikable, but in what way does the "freedom solves everything" crowd reflect the slightest bit of hipster qualities?

    2. Re:But . . . by Oh+Gawwd+Peak+Oil · · Score: 0

      "Freedom solves everything" crowd?

      Libertarians are the "Freedom for me solves everything" crowd.

      The instant you start talking about other people's freedom you are branded a "bleeding-heart."

    3. Re:But . . . by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Please, while that may be true on some level, on the level of the positions they directly assert, they clearly believe in universal freedom. Now whether that premise actually leads to the conclusions they claim it does, and whether the actual policy positions they support reinforce that universal freedom are up for debate(and are debated all the time), but you really don't need to resort to "The people I disagree actually believe something less respectable than what they claim to. Look at how easy to dismantle that position is."

  3. IAEA. Not Japan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Japanese govt. doesn't feel the necessity to take this on to date, evidenced by their unwillingness to even consider it.

    They've already blown oversight, transparency, and emergency response planning. They're not going to suddenly become competent.

    Get the IAEA in there, use the UN to pressure them to accept international oversight. There are over 12,000 fuel rods 100 feet in the air.

    There's really no more time for trusting the Japanese government.

  4. Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by zaax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just build a Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) next to the site, problem solved.

    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/MIT-Develops-Meltdown-Proof-Nuclear-Waste-Eating-Reactor.html

    1. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by somersault · · Score: 2

      Russ Wilcox, Transatomicâ(TM)s new CEO estimates that it will take eight years to build a prototype reactor

      Seems like the perfect solution to our current problem! :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      If the Japanese government had started planning this immediately after the earthquake, by now it would only be 10 years from completion.

    3. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the waste is just converted to honeyed milk... except bombarding uranium with neutrons is just going to yield fissile material *more* radioactive than when it started. The material you link to has almost no technical details. I challange to show the nuclear equation where the uranium isotopes from a spent fuel rod are converted to harmless non-radioactive isotopes.

    4. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Three things.:

      1. The radioactive waste needs to be removed from the ruins. This for the spent fuel tanks is extremely dangerous operation in itself.
      2. The radioactive waste needs to be processed in this case into salt solution. This is possible but nor really done yet ever. I understand this is rather 'small' problem especially comparing with the first one.
      3. MSR is in itself as dangerous as anything else. We thought we knew it all and then during decommissioning there were surprises. It is also interesting to think about what happens when molten salt escapes.

      Fix these and you get to become next emperor of Japan (and owner of TEPCO).

    5. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      why don't you learn some nuclear chemistry before spouting nonsense? Bombarding transuranics and actinides in spent nuclear fuel with neutrons will cause fission of heavy long-lived isotopes into shorter lived ones, the end result is a waste that needs storage for about three centuries rather than tens of thousands of years.

    6. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes, Oak Ridge did it but Nixon defunded the work in favor of a plutonium producing breeder, for some strange reason 8D

    7. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      Where do you plan to get those neutrons from? Fissile uranium-233/235 and some plutonium isotopes are about the only good source of energetic neutrons we have and guess what? fissioning them to create the neutron flux needed to destroy the various problematic actinides produces more of those pesky actinides. The high neutron flux needed to burn actinides damages reactor structures, piping, containments etc. and activates them with neutron capture producing isotopes like Co-60 which makes decommissioning at end-of-life a big headache, assuming nothing breaks bad due to neutron embrittlement meantime. And for Ghu's sake don't mention thorium.

    8. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      news for you, spent fuel is active enough to create its own critical configuration with the correct moderator. Plenty of material withstand high neutron flux with no damage just fine, like boron carbide. in short, the 1960s called, it wants your objections back

    9. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call bullshit. Bombarding with neutrons will not cause fission on all isotopes, most will just absorb the neutron. And again challange you to prove it, by writing out the nuclear reaction.

    10. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by blindseer · · Score: 1

      And for Ghu's sake don't mention thorium.

      Okay, I'll mention U-238. U-238 takes one neutron to turn into Pu-239, one more neutron to fission. The result of that fission produces, on average, somewhere between two and three neutrons. That means there is enough neutron flux to keep the fission of U-238 going and still fission the actinides. With enough time and neutrons those transuranics will either fission or decay. The fission of these transuranics will produce more neutrons which contributes to the flux that fissions other atoms. The decay of the transuranics means that they turn into something like U-238, Pu-239, or something else that is either fissile or fertile.

      The high neutron flux needed to burn actinides damages reactor structures, piping, containments etc. and activates them with neutron capture producing isotopes like Co-60 which makes decommissioning at end-of-life a big headache, assuming nothing breaks bad due to neutron embrittlement meantime.

      Next time I see a nuclear engineer I'll tell them that molten salt reactors are shit, because nojayuk said so. I'll tell them that the successful tests of molten salt reactors were all just made up by the US government to distract them from the aliens from outer space landing in the Arizona desert, or something.

      On second thought I think I'll take the word of engineers and scientists that work on this stuff for a living instead of taking the word from some random person on the internet.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      You mentioned U-238 and a neutron capture to make Pu-239 which is fissile, yes. When it fissions it produces "extra" neutrons, great. The fission also produces two or more atoms of fission products like Cs-137 and Sr-90, the sort of actinides the waste burners are meant to be destroying by splitting them with fast spectrum neutrons, and two neutrons (one for the breeding capture and one for the fission of the Pu-239) have already been debited from the total neutron economy of the cycle. It's only the fact that fission of the uranium and plutonium fuel produces a lot of short-lived actinides as well while the waste fuel being "burned" only contains problematic waste actinides with half-lives longer than a few days makes this work at all. The usual way to make it work is to use MEU and HEU, a proliferation risk and of course lots of Pu as a kickstarter. Breeding up from U-238 uses up too many precious neutrons if waste-burning is meant to be accomplished economically or at all.

      As far as construction a waste-burner reactor arrays the fuel and waste very closely together, not something that is simple to design and engineer as there is a lot of heat to get rid of hence the use of liquid metals like sodium or lead alloys and generally the last fifty years of experiments with sodium coolant and other liquid-metal systems have not been happy ones (although the Soviets only had a few problems with lead-bismuth in their submarine reactors). A waste-burning reactor needs two types of neutrons, slow moderated ones for the fission reaction in the uranium/plutonium fuel that creates a neutron surplus and fast-spectrum ones to accomplish the waste destruction and that means an incredibly high neutron flux in a small contained space at very high temperatures (usually 600 or 700 deg C). The designers hope the materials they choose today with no extensive experimental track record to go on will survive this onslaught for decades of continuous operation. Decommissioning at end-of-life is going to be problematic with a lot of irradiated and activated structure to deal with; most of the Powerpoint Cowboy handwaving on this subject tends to be that the solution will be developed while the first generation of reactors are running. Right.

      As for molten-salt, the reactor built in the US that is brought out like Lenin's corpse any time the thorium boosters need to make a point produced 7MW thermal for the few thousand hours it ran, it never generated any electricity and it burned U-233. It never used thorium at all or bred anything, it was a "simple" fission reactor with a normal neutron flux built at a time when a lot of experimental designs were being tried and tested and under a much laxer regulatory regime than exists today for power reactor construction. It would never be built in today's world, especially not after Chernobyl and Fukushima.

      There are fast-spectrum reactors being built today, experimental ones like the CIFR and first-gen production designs like the Russian BN-800/1000 (they think they've got the bugs out and they promise fewer sodium fires in the future) but they're not optimised for waste burning but aimed at using up more fuel per operating cycle and theoretically producing less long-lived waste. They are, thank Ghu, not trying anything involving molten-salt and thorium.

    12. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by blindseer · · Score: 1

      It would never be built in today's world, especially not after Chernobyl and Fukushima.

      Which is really sad because this is like saying we can't build jet airplanes because steam locomotives have a tendency to explode. Your arguments about systems cooled with water or liquid metals have nothing to do with liquid salt cooled systems.

      MSRs do not operate under "very high temperatures". 600 - 800C is cool by the standards of producing common products like glass, aluminum, and petrochemicals. MSRs do not operate under high pressures like current solid fuel fission reactors. MSRs do not require the use of molten metals for cooling, it's an option but not encouraged for the reasons you gave. The problems with other fission reactor designs do not apply to MSR, just like exploding locomotives have nothing to do with keeping a jet airplane flying.

      Your claim of not enough neutrons contradicts that from what I've read from people that have studied this for a living. They also gave diagrams, charts, numbers, and lengthy explanations that are convincing to someone like me. I'm no nuclear engineer but I am an electrical engineer. I studied enough chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics to see that these people seem to know what they are talking about and that you do not.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    13. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      I think the technical problems of building a waste-burning reactor can be overcome but they are substantial much as designing the first jet engines was much more difficult than building piston steam engines. The financial aspects are more problematical -- a waste-burner has to produce electricity to be viable in the marketplace, it's what will make money to pay off its design, construction and operation. It, like any other commercial electricity-generating system has to compete with coal and gas as bottom-line cheap generating fuels (cheap gas will probably run out in the next decade or two, coal is abundant and cheap into the next century and more), Right now conventional nuclear LWR and (debatably) heavy-water power reactors can compete even with coal generation in terms of cost per kWh even with all the regulatory, decommissioning and waste handling costs lumped in (not something the coal generating industry has to pay for of course). A new design of reactor, whether metal-cooled fast-spectrum or molten-salt which is aimed at burning waste and providing electricity as an afterthought will either be a subsidy bitch or will not be built in the first place.

      There have been a number of breeder reactor programmes around the world, almost all of them have been shut down in part because of their lack of financial viability and the rest closed due to major design screwups and mechanical failures before their financial problems came to light. Breeders are similar to waste-burners in many ways and the knowledge gained from the assorted failures would go into the detailed design stage of such reactors. Indeed a waste-burner would also be a breeder, it would take deliberate design decisions and careful operational control of such a reactor to prevent it from producing excess plutonium at the end of its operating cycle by breeding up from the U-238 in the waste fuel being "burned".

    14. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      why don't you just look up actinide neutron induced fission yourself instead of talking out of your ass?

    15. Re:Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the oak ridge labratory is that the let the transuranics sit for years and a lot of nasty stuff volitolized out of the mix. If it hade been properly decommisioned in a timely fashion there would have been only a fraction of the costs. But anyways it's missing the real problem. The tanks were never meant to be anything more than a short-term storage for a single change of fuel. We keep operating these LWR's with not idea of what's going to happen with the waste.

  5. Hyperbole isn't necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really now, any time nuclear anything is mentioned in comparison with Hiroshima, you know that someone is trying to scare you. I believe the SI unit would be Becquerels, not "Hiroshimas".

    1. Re:Hyperbole isn't necessary by somersault · · Score: 2

      With regards to this particular situation, Japan could do with a whole lot more scared, to pressure those in authority to get their arses in gear.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Hyperbole isn't necessary by bsolar · · Score: 1

      "Hiroshimas" are used to make average person (which has no idea what the SI unit means) understand that we are talking of something big. Kinda like sometimes data is measured in "Libraries of Congress"...

    3. Re:Hyperbole isn't necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, god forbid that anyone might actually grasp the scale of things, no, we should use units that no-one can easily find meaningful.

    4. Re:Hyperbole isn't necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With regards to this particular situation, Japan could do with a whole lot more scared, to pressure those in authority to get their arses in gear.

      No country needs to make more decisions based on fear - look at the USA. In this case fear will tell them to sacrifice too many good things brought about by cheap energy, because they aren't willing to rationally look at the pros and cons of all energy sources.

    5. Re:Hyperbole isn't necessary by yusing · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima was long time ago, that's not scary. When I think about what the US faces (screw Japan) if those 400 tons of fuel catch fire and start burning for years, I'm already scared. When I think about TEPCO trying to 'fix' that alone, I'm more scared. Rocky Flats and Hanford and a terrorist with two halves of a plutonium baseball are a joke by comparison.

      Something better get us all scared soon, because there's nothing else scarier on the planet right now ... and few people in the US seem to realize that.

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

    6. Re:Hyperbole isn't necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naw, this kind of sounds like an appeal to Godwin's law to me. As in: if you mention Hiroshima (or Chernobyl), you're automatically wrong. That's completely irrational. We have to analyze the comparison before we make a judgment on whether it's accurate or not. And incidentally, this happens to be a *massive* problem, not something that can be so easily dismissed as just pure hyperbole.

    7. Re:Hyperbole isn't necessary by somersault · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to shut down other nuclear plants or anything. I meant to get the cleanup done ASAP.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  6. Unlikely by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think the government is very likely to take over from TEPCO. TEPCO itself is already practically nationalized due to the vast amounts of money the government has had to pump into it and pay out to those affected by the disaster. By keeping it independent there is someone external to blame for all the problems, which would otherwise be the direct responsibility of the government.

    TFA is full of hype but one interesting point that is often missed is worth noting. The earthquake itself damage the plant, and even without the tsunami there would have been a serious accident.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Unlikely by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      The Japanese government has been supervising the work TEPCO have been carrying out since the tsunami. Basically they can't spit without permission and anything and everything about the site is reported to the government on a daily basis via the newly-setup Nuclear Regulatory Authority. Exactly what the government could do that TEPCO isn't doing right now I don't know.

      As for the earthquake the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi (and Daini ten km south) survived the ground shocks quite well, going into shutdown and maintaining their cooling operations on battery power even after the tsunami hit and knocked out the emergency generators. It was only after the batteries gave out that they overheated and gas explosions wrecked the reactor vessels and breached the containments.

      The reactor complex at Onagawa about 100km further up the coast from Fukushima Daiichi was even closer to the site of the earthquake and it survived without incident -- being sited higher up from sea level it wasn't materially affected by the tsunami.

    2. Re:Unlikely by geekoid · · Score: 2

      For one, they could get rid of the people who keep lying to them about the extent of the problem.
      two, They have access to more moeny and can get t solving the actual problem.

      This is all about how tepco handle everything post tsunami.
      And we are starting to see they weren't as unaffected as we were led to believe.
      This is why we should build more new tech reactors and they should be run by the government and the electricity sold at cost.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Unlikely by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      TFA is full of hype but one interesting point that is often missed is worth noting. The earthquake itself damage the plant, and even without the tsunami there would have been a serious accident.

      Really?

      The official line from, well, everyone, is that the reactors would have been fine had the emergency generators been able to operate. They were unable to operate because they were flooded by the tsunami. Also note that the emergency generators did turn on after the earthquake, before they were destroyed by the subsequent tsunami. Even then, secondary backup batteries kept the cores cool for 8 hours until the batteries were depleted.

      If the emergency generators were not flooded, they could have been operated as long as they could be kept fueled with diesel. Additionally, efforts to connect portable power generation equipment to the reactors were hindered by the flooding.

      So there really would have been no problem from just the earthquake without the tsunami. The reactors were SCRAMed and would have been kept cool by the (redundant) backup generators for an indefinite length of time.

    4. Re:Unlikely by acoustix · · Score: 1

      The reactors were SCRAMed and would have been kept cool by the (redundant) backup generators for an indefinite length of time.

      Ideally, you would safely shut down the reactors when running on generator. Running the plant any longer than absolutely necessary on generator power isn't the safest.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    5. Re:Unlikely by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Have a look at some of NHK's documentaries on the subject. I don't know if you can watch them online, the go out in English on NHK World. Anyway, they point out that emergency cooling was in fact available but didn't work.

      After the earthquake they lost power to their instrumentation. This prevented them from seeing that a valve that needed to be closed was in fact open. In addition some of the pipes carrying cooling water to the cores were damaged. Even though the backup generators were damaged by the tsunami they were still able to pump in cooling water with pump trucks. Unfortunately much of it ended up in storage tanks due to the valve being open, or simply leaked out before it got to the core.

      Even with the tsunami the meltdowns and hydrogen explosions could have been avoided if this system had worked. Even without the tsunami the backup generators would not have prevented a meltdown or the explosions, unless the problem had been discovered (which it might have been, in all fairness).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Unlikely by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If they got rid of the people lying they would have to immediately admit it was far worse than previous government estimates, based on those lies, said. As well as embarrassment that would also mean paying out more compensation.

      They don't want to pour more money into that giant sinkhole. It's going to cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars range by conservative estimates, and looks set to rocket as decontamination is failing and needs to be re-done in many areas. People are starting to get sick as well, something else that wasn't adequately budgeted for and which has an unknown future cost.

      Due to the vast costs nuclear power will never ever approach being economical or affordable in Japan now, especially as they don't have a nuclear weapons program to share it with. The chances of any new reactors being approved anywhere in Japan are pretty much zero, especially now people have realized that the country can cope without any and all the fear-mongering was just that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Unlikely by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reactors were shut down, that is the fission "chain reaction" had been stopped. The problem is that reactors build up fission products in the fuel pellets, assorted isotopes like I-131 and Cs-137 that are radioactive and as they decay they give off energy = heat. Operating reactors like the ones at Fukushima Daiichi produce about 3000 MW of heat when running at 100% power. A few seconds after they were shut down the residual radioactivity was producing only 50 MW of heat. By the time the cooling systems failed a few hours later that was down to one or two MW of heat as the very short-lived isotopes with half-lifes of seconds or minutes decayed away. That heat energy was still enough to react steam with the fuel rod cladding jackets and evolve hydrogen which caused the explosions.

      Reactors five and six at Daiichi, both with full fuel loads in place are being actively cooled to this day; they didn't suffer the hydrogen explosions the other four did but they weren't operating directly before the earthquake hit. There were some problems sustaining their cooling operations after the tsunami but they never failed totally.

    8. Re:Unlikely by fritsd · · Score: 1

      They *have* to pour more money in and clean it up. Japan is a very densely populated country. They can't all move out to "Japan 2.0" nextdoor, you know. If half of Honshu becomes uninhabitable for 300 years, where are they all going to live then?? Hokkaido?

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    9. Re:Unlikely by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      The area of Japan that's noticeably contaminated (i.e. significantly above background and maybe dangerous to live in for decades) by the Fukushima radiation releases is maybe a thousand square km in extent, or a quarter the size of Rhode Island to put it in terms of the US. A chunk of that is hills and mountains, quite lightly populated to start with. The larger towns in the area tend to be down near the coast for fishing and agriculture and most of those population centres missed the plumes of radioactive material from the explosions. They were evacuated anyway as a precaution -- some areas have now been reopened for the citizens to move back as testing and decontamination efforts have cleared them as being safe.

      The one place that remained occupied which did in fact get hit somewhat by the fallout plume is Fukushima City about 60km NW of the plant. Background radiation there is still way higher than before the accident (about 0.75 microSv/h today, or about 6 milliSv per annum cumulative).

    10. Re:Unlikely by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is a lot of people are not going back. Their jobs and businesses have gone, their homes are in ruin and have lost most of their value. They have been living somewhere else for over two years and have started a new life, with new friends and neighbours. It isn't clear if those towns will return to being viable communities again.

      Decontaminating land is a labour intensive and expensive job. Decontaminating the sea might be impossible, so anyone who used to fish or work in a related industry isn't going to go back any time soon. Even once decontaminated farm land is tainted and farmers will find it hard to sell their produce. Where decontamination has taken place it has been found to be lacking. While some people are being allowed back they are still advising that children stay away.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government already took over TEPCO long ago,, they are already running everything. This article is bizzare. I dont think any of the things he says are correct. How can a broken fuel rod cause an explosion or meltdown? The spent fuel has cooled for at least 3 years now. Its pretty cool right now. An explosion or meltdown isnt possible. I do not understand how any of the things in the article are at all correct.

    12. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, what part will be dangerous to live in for decades?

      6 MillSV at Fukushima City is pretty low radiation levels.... not dangerous, certainly much lower then other inhabited parts of the world
      The evacuation is supposed to end in 2016. It partly ended for the areas that werent contaminated (why were they evacuated at all?)

    13. Re:Unlikely by fritsd · · Score: 1

      No, I meant more like: what if spent fuel storage pool 4 stuff leaks into the ground water before cleanup is ready for it. I wasn't being clear.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    14. Re:Unlikely by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      A phrase I heard a while back, "overabundance of caution" sums up most of the thinking and legal processes involved. The measured radiation level in Fukushima City is about 6mSv/year, reducing as the Cs-134 (half-life two years) goes away but the Cs-137 (half-life 30 years) will hang around for a while so it won't go down very quickly -- it was at about 9 or 10 mSv/year when I visited Fukushima City briefly a couple of years ago. The problem is that this radioactive cesium is direct contamination on surfaces and in the upper soil levels, not stored in rocks and concrete so it's more likely than regular radioactive materials to get picked up on skin, breathed in, ingested in local food and water etc. thus it gets taken more seriously than simple background measurements would indicate. FYI before the accidents and contamination the background in Fukushima City was about 0.3 milliSv/year or 5% of the current value.

      As for "dangerous", living for years or decades in the more severely affected areas along the main plume would increase the lifetime chances of suffering from cancer by several percent, up from (say) 30% to maybe 35 or 40%. This is regarded as unacceptable, YMMV, but it would affect children and infants more than adults.

      The evacuation was carried out because things had gone badly wrong with releases of radioactive materials over a wide area and for a time the folks working at the site weren't sure it wouldn't get worse, with much greater releases as the cores and containments melted through after a total loss of cooling, the spent fuel pools drying out completely etc. Thanks to the efforts of those "blundering incompetent TEPCO" engineers they actually stopped worse happening but even a few months after the accidents happened there was still a chance of losing a reactor big time. While this was in progress Japanese law requires evacuation. Overabundance of caution means areas which are properly habitable again according to the measured amounts of contamination are still marked as off-limits or only accessible for short periods. The official Japanese upper limit for habitability is 20 milliSv/year but that's not being used as a yes/no decision point in regard to permanent return for most locations.

    15. Re:Unlikely by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      I don't really get what you think might happen with regard to reactor 4's spent fuel pool. It's a large deep tank of water with a lot of spent fuel bundles in it, cooling down the residual heat from radioactive decay of fission products. There are similar pools with spent fuel bundles on the top of the other three damaged reactors. The pool on reactor four contains more fuel bundles than the other three but that's about the only real difference.

      Testing of the coolant water and visual inspection of the fuel bundles says none of them are damaged or leaking contra wild speculation and earlier press reports. The engineers have actually craned out a couple of fuel bundles from the pool which had never been exposed in a reactor and so were only slightly radioactive (no fission products, just ceramic enriched uranium oxide pellets with very long half-lifes in metal tubes) and those bundles didn't show any noticeable damage, only a slight amount of corrosion from the use of seawater as emergency top-up coolant for the pool from shortly after the accident.

    16. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't part of this exacerbated by half of Japan being on 50 Hz power, and the other half 60 Hz?
      The mains feed into the Fukushima area was seriously damaged, but the mains from the undamaged other system, while relatively very close, could not be tapped into due to this frequency mismatch. Ooops.

    17. Re: Unlikely by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      This exodus is exacerbated by larger trends in more rural places like Fukushima. Even before the earthquake Fukushima was rapidly losing population(a combination of more births than deaths and a large # of young people moving to Tokyo/Osaka to find work). Now there is even less of a reason for young people to stay in Fukushima. Even if this mess gets cleaned up properly, the future of Fukushima prefecture does not look very bright.

    18. Re:Unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heat measured in MW?

  7. More like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why the Japanese Govt should have taken over from Day 1."

  8. USA might help by stewsters · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about they ask the Americans for help? We have had a lot of experience with nukes, and could use a chance to prove that we can still do something in the world besides violate international law. If we fuck it up, then you can blame external powers for it.

    1. Re:USA might help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese government is just going to make this worse. Could the US help? Absolutely - and should have been brought in during the actual crisis, or failing that immediately after the crisis for containment and clean-up. Anyway, this is a distinctly Japanese problem. They can't ask for help, because they'll loose face. So they won't. And they'll continue putting millions of people at risk. I don't think international intervention is in the cards, until after people start dying - or until after this is a significant threat to the wider Asian interests.

    2. Re:USA might help by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      How about they ask the Americans for help? We have had a lot of experience with nukes

      Yeah, let's send teams from the Hanford site. They've had a quarter century's worth of experience in failing to clean up a nuclear mess.

    3. Re:USA might help by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

      How would attacking the plant with drones help?

    4. Re:USA might help by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the US could help?

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    5. Re:USA might help by fritsd · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If you're serious, then no, they're not going to take advice from people who have the Hanford site and don't want to open that waste repository in Nevada what was it called..

      If you're making a funny joke (

      How about they ask the Americans for help? We have had a lot of experience with nukes, (...)

      ), then you are a really sick bastard.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    6. Re:USA might help by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

      How about they ask the Americans for help? We have had a lot of experience with nukes, and could use a chance to prove that we can still do something in the world besides violate international law. If we fuck it up, then you can blame external powers for it.

      I think Russia would be the experts, not the US. It's purely ego-centric to think that any nation would just at the US helping them out. BTW, I'm all in favor of disbanding congress, and bringing in another nation to redesign our government. I wonder how that would go over?

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    7. Re:USA might help by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I think Russia would be the experts, not the US.

      Yes, and they'd probably charge less too. The current may not be flowing their way, but their oceans are much closer to the problem as well.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:USA might help by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How about they ask the Americans for help?

      How about Fukushima Daiichi was sited where it was because of the Americans in the first place?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Next question by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who are they going to have do it? I don't know, let's call in the experts at Tepco.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Next question by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The could reach out to the global community, something Tepco doesn't want to do.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Next question by TWX · · Score: 1

      I think that the point is to change who makes the decisions, more than who handles the technical aspects.

      Remember, after the original disaster, there are several examples of on-site plant managers and workers defying their corporate bosses to do things that weren't necessarily in TEPCO's interest, but were definitely necessary to attempt to stabilize the situation, like injecting seawater into the reactor when the distilled coolant level was falling.

      If the workers and engineers know their business and TEPCO is fighting them with doing it, then the government should probably take over administration, with the ability to pay for all of the cleanup through TEPCO's budget, whether TEPCO likes it or not, as they've demonstrated on numerous occasions that their interest is in saving money and erring on the side of assuming the best, rather than the worst, when things are falling apart.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Next question by acoustix · · Score: 1

      The could reach out to the global community, something Tepco doesn't want to do.

      Citation needed.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    4. Re:Next question by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Neither Japan's govt. Do be naive, the Japaneses don't want another else to monitor are good or bad they are doing. It is very unlikely the govt will call the global community to help. And anyway, it is unlikely to be less costly and better. This issue revolves around management only, not around technical expertise.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    5. Re:Next question by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Wow! Sorry, I did I came with a so badly written comment?

      Neither Japan's govt. Don't be naive, the Japaneses don't want anyone else to monitor if they are good or bad at what they are doing. It is very unlikely the govt will call the global community to help. And anyway, it is unlikely to be less costly and better to call it. This issue revolves around management only, not around technical expertise.

      I hope this time it is much more readable. No, I wasn't drunk.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
  10. Socialize the costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Privatize the profits (US Big Biz 101)

  11. Re:First post! by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

    Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1258/

    There, FTFY.

  12. Ah, so "the market" is supposed to fix this? by Marrow · · Score: 2

    Yeah, free enterprise can solve any problem. I am sure there are plenty of entities out there that would love to have a bunch of radioactive waste to play with. I bet they would pay top dollar for it. Only....I think we may not want them to have it. But hey! After they spread it all over Tokyo or NYC, maybe thats actually a business opportunity! Think of the manufacturing revenues we could accrue in coffins.

  13. Major loss of face? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    There is no way they are going to ask for help.

    1. Re:Major loss of face? by lexx21 · · Score: 1

      With the world wide damage and loss of lfe that can be caused by this, I would not wait to be asked. Either we (the US) or the europeans should take it over and solve the issue. Other posters are correct... TEPCO has not shown that they are capable of fixing the issues at the power plant and thus they should be bypassed.

  14. Government or third party need to get involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TEPCO always seem to be downplaying any dangerous situation - later to be told by another party that, "Hey it's actually a lot worse than that!" I've lost trust in the PR that comes out of TEPCO.

  15. I don't think it makes a difference. by dietdew7 · · Score: 1

    The corporation is the government.

  16. France might help too by advid.net · · Score: 1

    France might help also. Areva has a lot of experience with nuclear reactors and wastes. They were willing to help during the meltdown, but at this moment Tepco seemed too proud to accept any help from the foreign countries.
    They accepted later, as they bought some water filtering equipment to capture radionucleids.

    Next time such a disaster occurs, I hope that the host country will not wait to aks help from the most competent companies in the world.

  17. Nonsense! by bravecanadian · · Score: 2

    If the government would just stop interfering with the free markets the invisible hand and enlightened self interest would take over and do a much better job! We'd be living in a land of unicorns and rainbows in no time!

    Also nuclear power is the only reasonable - and environmentally friendly! - solution to our energy problems. * /sarcasm

    * - Excluding all those pesky externalities because we all know in the technologically advanced future we'll magically solve all those problems -- also using the power of the free markets! (some conditions and circular reasoning may apply, offer not valid in all states blah blah blah)

    1. Re:Nonsense! by fritsd · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how the export profit of of selling novelty horses that have mutated to grow horns on their heads would off-set the loss in GDP of not being able to live near those horses and rainbows..


      I fear you are overlooking a very serious problem for the world elite: where are you going to find the nori for your sushi that *doesn't* glow-in-the-dark?

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  18. "It's just like a chem factory." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read that a lot from pro-nuclear folks after the incident. If a tsunami destroyed a large chemical plant, there'd be a lot of poisoned land too.
    So, dear pro-nuclear folks, riddle me that:
    Name even one chemical catastrophe in a first-world country, that was still an ongoing crisis after two years with those in charge having absolutely no idea how to clean it up without triggering a huge release of even more poison?

  19. TFA Might be Right, But... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    The commentary is written by:
    Andrew DeWit is a professor in the School of Policy Studies, Rikkyo University. Dr. Christopher Hobson is a research fellow at the Institute for Sustainability and Peace, United Nations University, Tokyo.

    Not exactly credentials for someone who should be making the decision on who should do the clean up. Certainly, the government should be monitoring whatever action is taken, and if Tepco is screwing up give them the boot. But, I wouldn't be doing so on the recommendations of these gents.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  20. Japanese government doesn't look good, either by swschrad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the International Nuclear organization's crisis teams and resources should be brought in, given a drawer full of blank checks, and set after it without any more interference by the hacks that caused this catastrophe in the first place.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  21. Articles from those with no technical knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should I care about opinions of people who obviously have no technical knowledge or worse have it and twist facts in the name of supporting their opinion.

      "contain radiation equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb"

    Of one particular constituent Cesum-137 not total radiation.

    "Removing its spent fuel, which contains deadly plutonium, is an urgent task."

    Of all the deadly radioactive shit in a spent fuel rod to single out "deadly plutonium" mostly an alpha emitter the intention seems to be invocation of irrational response from the public.

    They argue scary things can happen therefore Tepco should not be trusted to handle the cleanup yet the opinion piece is silent on governments technical ability to manage this any better than Tepco.

    To inject my own opinion where Japan has failed is in its failure to significantly embrace foreign technical help.

  22. The real reason by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    TEPCO will go out of business and can't afford the cleanup. New age capitalism requires you to privatize your profits and socialize the losses.

  23. Privatized profits, socialized losses by Wansu · · Score: 1

    Yep, it's about time the Japanese gov't steps in and takes charge of this mess. TEPCO has demonstrated they don't know what they're doing. Matters can and will get much worse. There are experts worldwide who can be brought in to help. The Russians have some experience with a meltdown. There are probably some TMI era consultants still around. It's going to get very expensive.

    We might ought to help them. It's not just their problem. If those fuel rods catch fire, that radioactivity will be drifting towards our Pacific coast.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  24. Government? by jclaer · · Score: 2

    Does anybody think our government could have managed the BP oil blowout?

  25. SSDD @ slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Japanese government cannot even maintain competence at providing oversight for TEPCO, why would a layman think that they could do their job entirely? Possible answer: his brain has the logical faculties of a bowl of grits.

  26. Please sign the petition by xenophrak · · Score: 1

    Please sign the petition over at Whitehouse.gov to get the US to act in getting the Japanese government to allow US/UN assistance in cleaning up the spent fuel pools. This is an urgent need.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-united-states-petition-un-and-japan-seek-assistance-removing-spent-fuel-fukushima/LHSB04r0

    ~ X

    --
    Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.
  27. Maybe Something More Traditional? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Have those who made the decision to build this global minimum spec engineered nightmare to publicly remove a finger?

    1. Re:Maybe Something More Traditional? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "publicly remove a finger"

            The one between their legs, without anesthesia. Their balls can't be removed as they've already proven they haven't got any.

      'When radiation goes above recommended safe minimum, just raise the safe minimum.' -- Government response after the tsunami.

      Remember this is a culture that took more than one atomic attack to see the futility of their arrogance. And after the second attack it took the full authority of their Emperor to force a surrender with a few outliers committing suicide in disagreement anyway. After only sixty years is it surprising that after a disaster and its increasing aftermath that the same arrogance is still around? They haven't changed that much.

  28. Not the government by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    TEPCO _is_ the government.
    And Japan is bankrupt.
    So let the world that so far ignores the disaster step in.
    Make TEPCO leave.
    Make Japan cede control.
    Have the rest of the world fix it. It's be quicker and less euphemistic.

  29. They could ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... bring in consultants from Chernobyl. Lessons learned and all that.

    Assuming any survived, that is.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  30. Oversight by Quila · · Score: 1

    If the company is cleaning it up, you have oversight by the government, the government can force the revelation of inconvenient facts, the government can force them to not take unnecessary risks.

    But who oversees the government if they're doing it?

  31. What? by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The problem was caused by corrupt lying sacks of shit and now you want to let politicians run the show?
    That's like exchanging AIDS for terminal cancer!

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason I'm reminded of the experiment (successful in cell beds, not in vivo) of treating cancer with a modified AIDS virus...

    2. Re:What? by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Then you honestly don't know Japanese politicians.

  32. Jimmy Carter: Nuclear Cleanup Ninja by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_River_Laboratories#1952_NRX-incident Protecting humanity's habitat for over 60 years.

  33. Why they shouldn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are no better than TEPCO, they've been downplaying Fukushima since day one, basically, lying their asses off. Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

  34. Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More hype and BS from the anti-nuke hippies. Read El Reg's Lewis Page's articles for better info :

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/21/omg_new_crisis_disaster_at_fukushima_oh_wait_its_nothing_again/

  35. disclosure? unpleasant? Japanese government? by swschrad · · Score: 1

    surely you jest. that's three lies in one thought.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  36. Spotlights are good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keeping a spotlight on people is a pretty good motivator to keep them working hard.

    Corruption tends to blossom when ignored, and TEPCO was suffering from a bad case of the stuff.

    Your linked article didn't strike me as being entirely trustworthy in its analysis either. Bias tends to do that.

    But I will agree that there is a lot of misinformation floating around.

  37. Lets use dat Hadron Collider thingamabob by ClassicASP · · Score: 1

    If only we could somehow create a temporary miniature black hole at the site of the incident and suck the entire plant site and all its radioactively contaminants into a ball of matter no bigger than a pea, and then create a parallel dimensional portal and then send the pea through it and close the portal and just make this whole problem go away.

  38. Show me the money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pay for these jobs is not that great.

    The ability to control the outcomes is greatly limited by many factors - politics, culture, funding, paralysis - making it difficult to succeed, and avoid failure.

    Why would any top talent want to become involved?

    You would likely be castigated for any failure, and forgotten for any success.

    I just read that they lack even simple tank fluid monitoring level technology - even though they admit a basic system would be extremely useful (contrary to some armchair expert assertions here who insist it is impossibly difficult). Why become involved with a project that cannot even deploy simple tank monitoring tech?

  39. nothing worse? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    "Japan has been very lucky that nothing worse has occurred at the plant."

    Ha! Hahahaha! BWAHahAHAHahAHaHAAHaHahAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAhaa

    (breaks down into weeping)

    ... you fucking idiots... you stupid fucking idiots....

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  40. It is high time by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    IMO they should never have put dangerous stuff in the hands of a for profit company.

  41. Who writes this shit? by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Removing its spent fuel, which contains deadly plutonium, is an urgent task.

    I won't claim to be an expert on nuclear waste but I can read Wikipedia like everyone else. Plutonium is taken up very slowly by the human body, it's radiation cannot penetrate the skin, and the half life is so long that it's nearly stable. I'm not saying it's something you'd want to play with, but calling the plutonium on site of the Fukushima some sort of urgent task is exaggeration.

    The plutonium created in any modern fission reactor is very small. They are specifically designed to burn it up as fast as it is created. Plutonium is only a real hazard if it is airborne, which should not happen unless these people decide it's a good idea to take concrete saws to the mess to cut it up into smaller pieces. Or if they eat it. If the workers are eating the corium then the cesium and other nasty stuff in that will kill them before the plutonium will.

    Also, if we turn this over to the Japanese government who are they going to have work on the site? So TEPCO fires all the people there and the government goes looking for out of work nuclear power experts from where now? Yep, the same people working on it now will be working on it then.

    This would be just like when the TSA took over airport security in the USA. All those security people were given fancy new uniforms, and now collect a pay check from the government instead of the airport, doing the same thing they were before. The incompetence from the TSA comes from the people that they chose to hire, and those people came from the pool of those willing to do airport security.

    Where would the Japanese government find a pool of people willing to work at Fukushima? From the pool of people that work there now. Changing who pays the bills is not going to fix this.

    Sorry folks, this is the best we got.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Who writes this shit? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

      Well, I don't know Mr. Andrew Dewit and Mr. Christopher Hobson, but obviously they don't know technically what they are talking about. They should have restricted themselves to policy or economic matters. In this comment I outlined why these fears are so unlikely to happen: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4141363&cid=44704783

      Nonsense, the arrays are already encased in boron cages in the fuel storage racks, they will not go critical even if they are not cooled. Cooling is needed to keep the fuel arrays mechanically sound so they couldn't release the radioactive materials inside them. There is no serious damage in the fuel arrays in the spent fuel pool of unit 4. The damage in each of the 4 units destroyed is very different, so a single event making all of the remaining fuel release their radioactive materials is highly unlikely, and even if it happens, they have in their favor that the fuel in the spent fuel pools have already undergone 2.5 years more of cooling and decay of its radioactive material since the accident, so any new emergency in the pools will be easier to manage than in 2011. The fire in unit 4 was caused by the hydrogen released by the damage in the core of unit 3, not by any release from the fuel in its spent fuel pool. Still, there are a bunch of morons of TEPCO's management that should be behind bars due their criminal incompetence and negligence.

      The worst possible things about Fukushima I have already happened. The leaks from the storage thanks, the damage to reactors buildings, the evacuation, the radioactive contamination of the surroundings, the explosions, the makeshift equipment, all that could and should have been avoided if TEPCO's management had made the necessary expenditures to protect and improve the safety of their nuclear power stations. 4 nuclear power stations were hit by the quake and the tsunami but the only ones that suffered serious damage were the ones mismanaged by TEPCO. The scarecrow of new explosions and accidents only deflect the attention of the public away from the long delayed trial against TEPCO's managers for their criminal negligence.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  42. Pure scaremongering by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    They talk like all of the 6 units are equally damaged. Units 5 and 6 are, if not intact, in a good enough shape to be returned to be returned to commercial service like the surviving reactor from Chernobyl. The pool of unit 4 as been reinforced, and the structure, after having all the debris from the explosions removed, have a better chance to survive another quake. The building of Unit 2 is almost intact. Unit 3 is the one with the most damage, and have the crane and many large pieces of equipment and debris inside the spent fuel pool; that will be a real challenge. The good thing is that in Unit 4 they don't have to deal with the makeshift cooling equipment to the damaged cores and the radiation coming out from them. The task to clean up the mess in Fukushima I is actually easier in Unit 4, thats why they starting with the fuel removal from the spent fuel pools there.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  43. Solution - Fight Fire with Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuke the plant out of existence. While a radical idea, if you vaporise it, there will be no more problem. Who needs to decommission it, if it no longer exists? Yes. The area will be radio active for a long time, but it is already radio active for a long time.

  44. Re:disclosure? unpleasant? Japanese government? by Quila · · Score: 1

    The alternative to private is government, which aren't exactly known for allowing the people to know the screwed up stuff they're doing.

  45. Just because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because somebody doesn't know nuclear terminology doesn't mean you should automatically assume they're sick bastards.

    His point was valid, NRC should step in and offer assistance.

    1. Re:Just because by fritsd · · Score: 1
      Misunderstanding.

      I wasn't laughing at his/her nuclear terminology; on the Internet it's difficult to see if people are joking sometimes (it's called Poe's law) and especially on Slashdot people can sometimes say quite sick things. I thought he/she was referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is also a likely interpretation of the sentence "We have had a lot of experience with nukes", and my first reaction was "what a sick bastard!".

      Do you like Harry Potter? I'll try to elaborate:

      In "the Goblet of Fire", there is a scene in ch. 14 where the faux Mad-Eye Moody talks to Neville Longbottom in class:

      "'Pain,' said Moody softly. 'You don't need thumbscrews or knives to torture someone if you can perform the Cruciatus curse ... that one was very popular once, too.'
      Right. ... anyone know any others?"

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  46. Govt has to fix it again by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

    always the same, ultra-capitalist companies (banks, nuclear power plant operators) mess stuff up big time and once the profits are reaped by the bosses and the system crashes, they cry for the government to help and patch everything up again - spend billions of our all money - because the companies and people who pulled out literally billions upon billions of profits cant be bothered to do their share.