The Status of the Fukushima Clean-Up

TL;DR version by Gravis+Zero · 2013-12-04 22:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

it still sucks and it's going to take forever to clean up.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:TL;DR version by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2013-12-04 23:06 · Score: 1

What color do you want you sushi to glow tonight?
There, fixed that for you.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:TL;DR version by discord5 · 2013-12-04 23:49 · Score: 2

What color do you want your sushi to glow tonight?
There, fixed that for you.
At least fix the damn typo while you're improving the content.
Re:TL;DR version by ciderbrew · 2013-12-04 23:59 · Score: 1

your knew to gernalism arnt' You?
Re:TL;DR version by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 01:07 · Score: 1

I thought this was the Windows news item for a second.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · 2013-12-05 01:35 · Score: 2

To be exact, "forever" is probably equal to enough half-lives of most active and dangerous materials so that they become relatively harmless.
Same idea as in Chernobyl. Unlike chemical waste, radioactive waste destroys itself over time. It makes sense to contain it and let most of it destroy itself to manageable levels before cleaning it up.
Re:TL;DR version by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-12-05 02:20 · Score: 1

Well I hope the Nuclear Waste Storage site isn't being designed by the same bozos who built a Fission Reactor over an active fault in a tsunami zone otherwise they'll build it on top of Mt St Helens!

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:TL;DR version by Anne_Nonymous · 2013-12-05 02:29 · Score: 1

>> it still sucks and it's going to take forever to clean up.
Those crazy Japanese are making this way harder than it needs to be. Just dig up all that crap and leave it on a truck in Mexico someplace. Ta-da! All clean.
Re:TL;DR version by nospam007 · 2013-12-05 02:46 · Score: 1

"it still sucks and it's going to take forever to clean up."
No, not forever. People can go back to their homes from 12 pm January 5th 186013.
Re:TL;DR version by nospam007 · 2013-12-05 02:48 · Score: 1

"from 12 pm January 5th 186013."
Oops typo. Should have been the year 186014, obviously.
Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · 2013-12-05 02:51 · Score: 1

Nothing wrong with this. Another reactor that was closer to epicenter and got hit by larger tsunami survived just fine. Of course, it was a generation newer, and not 60s tech with better seawall to boot.
Re:TL;DR version by Andy+Dodd · 2013-12-05 03:37 · Score: 1

Yup. The reactor sustained no damage from the earthquake itself.
It was the following tsunami they didn't properly plan for.
Also - more modern plants would have weathered this tsunami without problems. Newer plant designs have significantly improved passive safety, rendering the diesel generators (which are safety-critical in older plants) non-safety-critical.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Re:TL;DR version by Megane · 2013-12-05 09:56 · Score: 1

Unlike chemical waste, radioactive waste destroys itself over time.
And the longer it takes to do so, the less of a problem it was to begin with. If it takes a million years, it's not very radioactive. If it's really, really radioactive, it will only last for days, weeks, or months. The main problem is with stuff with a half-life of decades, and likes to take the place of other elements in your body, such as the calcium in your bones, where it can irradiate you for the rest of your life.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:TL;DR version by Megane · 2013-12-05 09:58 · Score: 1

Actually, there was some evidence that the Fukushima reactors did have containment damage from the earthquake. It's just that the problems caused when the tsunami took out the cooling (and these reactors need active cooling even for weeks after being shut down) were much worse.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · 2013-12-05 23:52 · Score: 1

Again, the generation newer plant was closer to the epicenter, took the bigger hit and bigger tsunami. It survived it just fine.
Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · 2013-12-06 11:00 · Score: 2

No, we'd like the anti-nuclear lobby to stop blocking plant upgrades. In doing so, they effectively cause these problems. The sad reality is that anti-nuclear lobby blows everything out of proportion. Minor piping problem on secondary circuit? "Nuclear accident!" Plant generational mid life upgrades? "They are building up more nuclear, PROTEST, BLOCK IT!"
And then you get Fukushima, 60s plant that never got upgraded, get hit by earthquake order of magnitude bigger than they were originally designed for, survive it, get hit by a tsunami that kills its diesel generators which are safety critical because plant didn't receive any mid-life upgrades at all, then it melts down as infrastructure in the region is devastated and there's no power for downright ancient cooling systems.
Nuclear industry isn't the one that is able to turn its image around. Your strawman argument is an excellent example - nothing in this world is "perfectly safe", and claiming otherwise instantly results in "oooh, you admitted it's dangerous". It's facing power hungry well financed "green" anti-nuclear lobby, financed by coal and oil, which are loving the Fukushima by the way, they likely paid for most of the lobby financing done in last century just on last two year buildup in Japan and Germany alone. I seriously doubt that nuclear will ever be able to shake the image that is being pushed on it with so much of both money and fairly uneducated people who think "something I can't see that kills, scaaaary" when they hear "nuclear", at least until the global warming gets really bad.
By that time, it'll probably be too late, but that's all too human I guess - we'll just shove our collective heads in the sand, get scared by something we can't see but we know is nowhere near as harmful as alternatives, and build up those alternatives because their harmfulness, we can at least see. It's pretty fucking horrifying, but we can see it - so by definition of average person, it's not as scary.
Errare humanum est.
Re:TL;DR version by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-12-07 12:40 · Score: 1

Seriously? Troll? The bar is quite low on Slashdot these days.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:TL;DR version by TheRealLifeboy · 2013-12-09 00:04 · Score: 1

It will probably have a good effect on life in general and prevent a lot of cancer.
This is why no-one has died from radiation sickness at Fukushima and probably won't in future either. It also explains why the people that chose to live in the Chernobyl radiation area are not mutating and dying a slow, horrible death. Radiation (as high as 800 mSv aoording to the original research) is actually good for you!
Time to get with the times and stop hanging around in the atomo-phobic 60's!
Re:TL;DR version by doom · 2013-12-11 05:00 · Score: 1

TheRealLifeboy:

It will probably have a good effect on life in general and prevent a lot of cancer. This is why no-one has died from radiation sickness at Fukushima and probably won't in future either.

And the link goes to this letter, describing the case of people living exposed to Cobalt-60. TheRealLifeboy is referring to here the question of whether the danger of radioactive exposure scales down to low dosage in a linear way (the assumption our safety rules are based on), or whether the danger levels off at some point, and there's a threshold below which it's not dangerous, and may even be beneficial ("radiation hormeisis").
Myself, I would say that this is essentially an open question, with some evidence pointing either way. More importantly though, it isn't necessary for there to be a "safe threshold" for nuclear power to be safe, relative to other sources of power. Our safety rules make the more conservative assumption, so this isn't really an issue.
And as a fellow pro-nuke kind of guy, take it from me: the Okrent Window is way out there compared to this position. It doesn't matter whether it's true, you don't want to make the assertion because it just sounds too crazy to the people you want to convince. You need to say stuff like "the number of deaths caused by the Fukushima incident are far lower than many people realize", you don't want to say stuff like this:

Radiation (as high as 800 mSv aoording to the original research) is actually good for you!
Re:TL;DR version by doom · 2013-12-11 05:11 · Score: 1

It's facing power hungry well financed "green" anti-nuclear lobby, financed by coal and oil, which are loving the Fukushima by the way, they likely paid for most of the lobby financing done in last century just on last two year buildup in Japan and Germany alone.

Hm... well I like a good conspiracy theory, myself, but I was going to caution you that toning this one down would probably help The Cause more, but actually this is the mirror-image of the kind of reasoning that lefties like to use, where money automatically implies corruption... it'd be interesting to see how they respond to this one.
But really, I think that many of the big corporations involved don't really care that much... they don't really specialize in one form of energy, and if you'd rather they make money on nuclear than coal or oil, I doubt they care that much. (On the other hand, "clean coal" is clearly a PR-campaign pipe-dream, if you ask me, so maybe I'm over-simplifying.)
As I understand it, there is a long-standing problem that results from this: the obvious defense of nuclear is that it's way better than coal, but the utility companies refuse to make that argument, because they don't want people taking aim at their coal plants.
Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · 2013-12-11 09:29 · Score: 1

I'm not so naive as to think that "The Cause" as you so pompously put it will be driven or not driven by random people discussing it on the internet forums.
In general however, power industry is by necessity linked to government agencies like no other, including governments on the very bottom of the TI's corruption index. When you have to plan ROI that is over 40 years at the very least, and need functional grid to sell your electricity as well as stable supply routes for fuel and replacement parts, while local government will need you to produce power in a stable fashion with reasonable prices, you're going to end up very much intertwined.
What I'm talking about however, is not corruption of governments, but internal corruption of the green movement. Driven by both logical and correct "coal is bad", which was largely responsible for the fact that major coal builder designed their modern burners in the way that doesn't even generate NOx and SO2, the acid rain causing nasties, and irrational fear of nuclear mostly driven by popular demand of population severely traumatized by cold war propaganda, they are torn between the two. This makes them easy targets for donations that swing their activists one way or another, and nuclear in general is just too small and too monitored of an industry in comparison to coal or oil.
And by the way, as it stands, utility companies have a lot of mothballed coal plants all over the world, and coal is cheap, reliable, very profitable to burn and we have hundreds of years of known supply. Nuclear while more efficient and about as profitable but tends to require more costly plant off the bat (but potentially better ROI over time) and requires a whole lot more of government oversight.
The real force here however are the builders of the plants and fuel suppliers, and in this particular competition, coal trumps everyone. Even oil has problems competing.
Re:TL;DR version by doom · 2013-12-12 06:19 · Score: 1

I'm not so naive as to think that "The Cause" as you so pompously put it

Hey man, I'm ironically pompous, unlike some people around here.

will be driven or not driven by random people discussing it on the internet forums.

Ah, but a journey of a thousand steps, and never doubt that a small group of the committed, and don't forget the power of ideas, and the great rough-and-tumble of democracy, and--
In any case, my point is that going after the motives is a common move among the anti-nuclear left (if you're pro-, you must be Pro, who's paying you to say this?!). It is also a fairly common move by conservatives to assume that left-wing activists are essentially just in the business of being left (the "Professional Left"). I don't think anyone effectively makes this case to people on the left-- a question like "How do you know the coal industry isn't funding the Greens?" is from one point of view silly, possibly unfair, a nutty, unfounded conspiracy theory-- but on the other hand it has some interesting mind-fuck potential and if you sincerly believe something like that, it would be at a minimum amusing and perhaps instructive to see you push it seriously.
After all, much as I would like to find a way for reason and rationality to prevail on it's own, it hasn't been doing so well, has it?
Re:TL;DR version by Luckyo · 2013-12-12 06:26 · Score: 1

Problem being it would make a lot of business sense to fund green movement, and there's plenty of opportunity - I've seen several cases where prominent green movement leaders were called to "presentations of new clean coal technologies" in fine hotels. It would be pretty surprising if industry leaders in coal, who have to be specialists in bribery to survive in the industry would not see the massive potential in directing green movement to attack its main competitors.
Personally I'm not a fan of conspiracies, but I'm a fan of common sense and following the money. In this case, it both makes sense and would be financially smart to corrupt the green movement as much as possible to direct its wrath against competition.

I live on the Pacific by Suiggy · 2013-12-04 23:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

And I've stopped eating Sushi.

Re:I live on the Pacific by drinkypoo · 2013-12-05 00:00 · Score: 1

And I've stopped eating Sushi.
Me too, but who cares what we're doing?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I live on the Pacific by serviscope_minor · 2013-12-05 00:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

And I've stopped eating Sushi.
So you were happy when the coal plants were dumping untold amounts of mercury and other crap into the sea (it all winds up there eventually), but now you've stopped eating fish because of Fukishima?
You need to evaluate your risk assessment strategies.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:I live on the Pacific by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-05 01:03 · Score: 1

And you need to eat more sushi.
Please. You can have mine.
Re:I live on the Pacific by tommeke100 · 2013-12-05 01:23 · Score: 2

Most fish used in sushi doesn't come from the Pacific.
It comes from fishing farms, where the fish have so little room that most are sick, so pesticides and anti-biotics are used to keep them alive until they're good to harvest.
No need to tell you eat that stuff as well.
Re:I live on the Pacific by quenda · 2013-12-05 01:52 · Score: 1

And I've stopped eating Sushi.
The Pacific is kind of big. The ocean water naturally contains about 100 million tonnes of uranium.
And while the reactor isotopes will cross the ocean in detectable quantities, that takes years.
Re:I live on the Pacific by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-05 02:33 · Score: 1

Why is this upvoted? it is a blatant strawman argument.
Re:I live on the Pacific by Applehu+Akbar · 2013-12-05 03:10 · Score: 2

I love sushi, but what I fear about it is the possibility of parasites. I would be a lot happier if sushi were routinely irradiated.
Re:I live on the Pacific by rapidmax · 2013-12-05 04:07 · Score: 1

I would not be that certain. If the waste is distributed evenly then it should not increase the natural radiation much. But it may come in concentrated bubbles:
http://www.ingenieur.de/Fachbereiche/Kernenergie/Radioaktive-Wasserblase-Fukushima-treibt-amerikanische-Westkueste
Re:I live on the Pacific by khallow · 2013-12-05 04:55 · Score: 1

Because the previous poster claimed that they stopped eating sushi, implying that they had eaten it before. That meant that they found toxins in sea animals from coal burning plants (and other sources) acceptable, but not the trivial extra amount from the Fukushima accident.

It's not a straw man argument, if it directly and appropriately applies to the person being spoken to.
Re:I live on the Pacific by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-05 05:37 · Score: 1

Implying that he was happy with the mercury caused by coal is the fallacy. nothing in anything said implies that he was happy nor aware of the previous situation. the entire post is argumentative and does not belong on slashdot. It is being upvoted because people here like nuclear power and are feeling defensive of it. I'm not arguing over the correctness of of one power system over the other. Just trying to improve the quality of slashdot.
a none sensationalist way to say the same thing would be"I feel that the small increase in radioactivity caused by this accident is better than the alternative of mercury poisoning which is statistically a larger problem" Thats insight sayig someone happy that he is eating mercury is ridiculous.
Re:I live on the Pacific by khallow · 2013-12-05 05:48 · Score: 1

Implying that he was happy with the mercury caused by coal is the fallacy. nothing in anything said implies that he was happy nor aware of the previous situation.
Changing one's behavior based on a trivial increase in risk implies ignorance of the previous state of affairs. And "happy" is used sarcastically.

the entire post is argumentative and does not belong on slashdot.
You would be wrong here. Slashdot's whole business model revolves around argumentative geeks collecting in one place and writing argumentative posts.

It is being upvoted because people here like nuclear power and are feeling defensive of it.
Given the unthinking libel that gets throw around (like assuming right after the accident that TEPCO has to be incompetent without information), I think that's a reasonable concern.
Re:I live on the Pacific by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-05 06:18 · Score: 1

You are correct, it is slashdots business model and does belong here, poor choice of words on my part, What I should have said it does not deserve a plus 5 insightful rating. As for fighting libel with libel I strongly disagree,
hence my first post. I like to see logical arguments. (Like you are doing with me) Responding to ridiculous claims with more ridiculousness does not further any cause, it only serves to make everyone look stupid.
Re:I live on the Pacific by quenda · 2013-12-05 11:10 · Score: 1

What a load of alarmist and deceptive nonsense. Carefully worded to make harmless or irrelevant things sound scary.
That is immoral behavior.
Worse, the sub-edit has taken those deceptive words, and made headlines which are outright lies. So if the editor is fooled so badly, the general readers must be even more so.
e.g. OMG Fukushima put more radiation into the ocean (100x claimed) than Chernobyl!! (But less into the Caspian maybe?)
But this leads to the headline: "Released 100 times as much radiation as Chernobyl"
I'm sad for the decline of journalism.

Please explain to a dum-dum... by jones_supa · 2013-12-04 23:44 · Score: 1

Why did they continue to run the plant after the tsunami incident? There has been little malfunctions all the time since then.

Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by AlecC · 2013-12-04 23:58 · Score: 1

They didn't. The malfunctions have all been in containment and cleanup systems. All Japanese nuclear reactors were closed down after the tsunami, and only two, a long way from Fukushima, have restarted - against considerable protest. None of the reactors at that site will ever run again.

--
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by Trepidity · 2013-12-04 23:58 · Score: 1

It's not still operating; they shut it down completely after the incident. The subsequent incidents, like this one, have been related to the containment/cooling/cleanup operation.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by Calinous · 2013-12-05 00:00 · Score: 2

The plants were stopped. Unfortunately, stopped nuclear plants still produce heat, so they need cooling (lots of cooling at that).
The tsunami broke the cooling installation, so the heat from the "non-functional" reactors (or storage pools or whatever) had nowhere else to go fast. If I remember correctly, two of the nuclear plants were to be decommissioned, and were kept at "zero operating power" (that is, as low as possible). As they weren't cooled enough, they had a heat buildup that ended with meltdown.
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by Trepidity · 2013-12-05 00:04 · Score: 4, Informative

All Japanese nuclear reactors were closed down after the tsunami, and only two, a long way from Fukushima, have restarted
They haven't actually restarted yet, fwiw. The operator has applied for permission to restart them, and after some controversy, the government has decided in principle to consider the request, so the relevant agency has started a safety assessment. Even if approved, they are unlikely to restart before 2016.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by AmiMoJo · 2013-12-05 01:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

That a simplification but essentially correct.
In fact both the earthquake and tsunami damaged the cooling system. They could have recovered from that using emergency pump trucks, which in fact they did try to do. The problem was that all the monitoring equipment was out of action due to lack of power, so they were unaware that a valve was open and syphoning off the water they were pumping in before it reached the reactors. The tsunami damage made getting near enough to make manual checks difficult, and then things started to explode as well.
The plant was designed to survive flooding and tsunami, it just didn't work in a real emergency situation. That is why when operators claim that their plants are safer or they have some new design that can't possibly go wrong people are sceptical. The same reassurances have been made before.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by quenda · 2013-12-05 01:56 · Score: 1

None of the reactors at that site will ever run again.
The Japanese are such wimps. The three remaining reactors at Chernobyl continued operating for 10 to 14 years after the #4 reactor incident.
Fukushima may have lost 3 reactors, but there are still another 3 perfectly good ones on site that happened to be shut down for maintenance when the Tsunami hit.
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by DSElliot · 2013-12-05 04:58 · Score: 1

Good hunting, Stalker.
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by nojayuk · 2013-12-05 05:18 · Score: 2

Two reactors at Ohi were restarted back in 2012. Japanese nuclear regulations require a shutdown and inspection of all reactors every thirteen months, usually done as part of a refuelling operation. The Ohi reactors have been shut down again after operating for thirteen months but are not restarting after inspection and refuelling for various reasons, mainly bureaucratic and local-political.
Re:Please explain to a dum-dum... by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-12-06 08:03 · Score: 1

The plant was designed to survive flooding and tsunami, it just didn't work in a real emergency situation. That is why when operators claim that their plants are safer or they have some new design that can't possibly go wrong people are sceptical. The same reassurances have been made before.
That's because the plant was not designed for Tsunamis of a height that has occurred in that area, and was known to have occured in that area. That's the real criminal element of this whole sad story.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

I Live 90 Miles From the Site by fullback · 2013-12-05 00:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

And I have two things to say.

1. It's an incredibly difficult job where new challenges have to be met with new thinking every day.

2. The people who are doing the difficult work deserve a huge gratitude of thanks for their effort. Working in full radiation suits and masks in 35C temperatures in summer took extraordinary strength of purpose and determination.

All of you that are going to make jokes about glowing whatever and Godzilla can go fuck yourselves. And I mean it. Go Fuck Yourself.

Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-05 00:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Humour is a coping strategy. If people are not allowed to make jokes about stuff that scares them it gets much scarier for them.
Live with it.
Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by Trax3001BBS · 2013-12-05 00:27 · Score: 1

2. The people who are doing the difficult work deserve a huge gratitude of thanks for their effort. Working in full radiation suits and masks in 35C temperatures in summer took extraordinary strength of purpose and determination.
I hear that, and it is an effort to do it for long, I've worked in full plastics, rain gear, pants, top, hood it's no joy, and damn hot work.
Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by NandGate1 · 2013-12-05 00:46 · Score: 2

I think it's great that someone close to the site posted something like this. It could have opened up a wonderful dialog. However, you really diluted your message by adding those last two sentences.
Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by tp1024 · 2013-12-05 01:10 · Score: 1

It's not a "coping strategy" when you're 10000 miles away.
Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 01:43 · Score: 1

It's a coping strategy to joke about the threat, not the victims. If you're joking about people glowing in the dark and those people lost access to the very ground their home used to stand on, you're a dick.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by GarethIwanFairclough · 2013-12-05 02:02 · Score: 1

The worst I ever had to put up with was military NBC gear. That stuff was bad enough on a hot (British) summer day.
Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by phantomfive · 2013-12-05 05:02 · Score: 1

All of you that are going to make jokes about glowing whatever and Godzilla can go fuck yourselves. And I mean it. Go Fuck Yourself.
Hey, I strongly recommend anger management classes there, bro. Those classes really helped old Godzilla.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:I Live 90 Miles From the Site by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-12-05 05:57 · Score: 1

You have the luxury of being 90 miles away from the nuclear plant, but I understand that you are sensitive to any remarks concerning this disaster. It's comparable to Americans being upset at people who make light of the September 11 attack on the twin towers. Fukushima is a national concern for Japan.
I don't particularly care for your "fuck yourself" comment because not only does it take away all the positive energy you projected on the people working at the site, it squashed most chances to have a positive dialog.
Some people are assholes and I experienced what you are talking about. I live on the US Gulf Coast and was in a disaster zone. I've seen comments condemning me and my neighbors for living where we do despite the fact that there are very few places that doesn't have some potential for natural disaster. There is nothing like being figuratively spit on by slashdot while you have to clean up debris, survey and repair damages, and care for your neighbors. That said I do think you are overreacting a little about the Godzilla comments.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...

Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by TheRealHocusLocus · 2013-12-05 00:15 · Score: 4, Informative

I am held AGHAST by the biblical-level hysteria that is circulating about Fukushima these days. It is being served up and replicated with the relish of the street-corner preacher with an end-of-world sign. Every die-off of fish is related (ignore the Atlantic), the melting starfish (never mind it's happening worldwide), from mammals to narwhals there is some serious confirmation bias being stirred.

The computer model plume of currents has DEATH arriving at the United States West coast; mere detection of miniscule amounts of Cesium -- which science is capable of to an extraordinary level of precision -- is being fronted as a radioactive death sentence.

There seems to be no deference to expert or even medical opinion on true risk factors; and in the tired vein of disaster porn, any appeals to consider such generates a (predictable) backlash of conspiracy coverup allegations. At times it is literally a no-think zone.

Radioactivity is the new whipping boy of disaster porn.

NO-HYPE Fukushima information:

Fukushima Accident Updates. Leslie Corrice has done an excellent job chronicling the accident from 2011. Following the latest posting thread backwards in time (some 60 pages so far) is a detailed account you will find nowhere else.

Fukushima Accident Commentary Leslie Corrice again, exhibiting a level of journalistic integrity that is fast-fading on today's news and Internet sources, has maintained a separate thread of personal opinion and commentary. It is as fascinating a read as the last, here you will find topics of politics, culture and status and observation of the Fukushima victims' compensation fund and resettlement.

Nuclear Industry source: Nuclear Street tag: Fukushima

Rod Adams' Atomic Power Review has scaled down its Fukushima coverage as of late, but in the archives you will find some detailed articles with week-by-week coverage.

Do add more!

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>

Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Viol8 · 2013-12-05 00:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

The hysteria is whipped up by the more extreme hippy enviromentalists and their patsies in the ignorant media and governments (hello Germany). The hippies have a deep seated hatred of anything nuclear simply because SOME power stations in SOME countries were used to generate plutonium. So regardless of its benefits they damn the best form of power generation we have to offset climate change - and don't anyone bloody start about fucking stupid windfarms that cost a fortune, blanket god knows how many square miles and produce sod all power most of the time - simply because of their political leanings and their mindset being stuck in the 1980s along with whats left of CND.
Frankly these people are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves, but instead they just make more and more noise. The only consolation is they'll all be dead in a few decades and hopefully sanity will prevail once more. And anyone who still thinks nuclear power is dangerous should think twice about visiting France. Though I'm not aware of it being radioactive yet.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-05 01:05 · Score: 1

I cant believe I had to scroll this far down to read a reasoned comment. After all the people who died that day through natural disasters the people seem to be looking for more people to die to appease their blood lust. The zero casualties from radiation seems to mean nothing and the blown up assumption that people will suddenly die off from cancer is ridiculous.
What is worse is that this second only to Chernobyl incident that killed nobody will be blamed for every instance of cancer from now on (to the ignorance of normal cancer rates).
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Talderas · 2013-12-05 01:28 · Score: 1

I thought the hippies hated nuclear because it increased energy production which increased human population which leads to the rape of earth as they likely call it.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by GarethIwanFairclough · 2013-12-05 02:04 · Score: 1

Another comment that ought to be modded up. I read a lot of those sources, Rod Adams' blog in particular.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by hey! · 2013-12-05 02:45 · Score: 2

Yes, dagnebbit. If only them long-haired hippies with their free love, LDS and bell-bottom trousers would go away, TEPCO would have this licked.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sorry but where is this hysterical coverage? The Guardian article you're critiquing here ends with:
"Two years ago there was a huge earthquake and tsunami that killed around 20,000 people. But every day when I read the paper, it said, 'nuclear disaster, nuclear disaster, nuclear disaster'. In actual fact, not one person has died of radiation, nor is anyone likely to. The straight story is the Japanese didn't have a nuclear response plan. There were a lot of human errors during what happened at Fukushima. It was old technology, badly maintained, and the regulator was not respected. Those are the facts. They have to be faced and dealt with."

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by DerekLyons · 2013-12-05 03:06 · Score: 1

I am held AGHAST by the biblical-level hysteria that is circulating about Fukushima these days. It is being served up and replicated with the relish of the street-corner preacher with an end-of-world sign. Every die-off of fish is related (ignore the Atlantic), the melting starfish (never mind it's happening worldwide), from mammals to narwhals there is some serious confirmation bias being stirred.
And that's just the 'calm' comments here on /., everywhere else it's much worse.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Applehu+Akbar · 2013-12-05 03:31 · Score: 1

The problem is not in Japan, which is a place where science and engineering are respected and which will, after appropriate safety checks and emergency procedure redesign, restart most of its reactors. It's Western media, riddled as it is by ex-hippies who were fricasseed in Seventies anti-technology culture, that keeps crying Wolf about the imminent death of the Pacific.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Andy+Dodd · 2013-12-05 03:43 · Score: 1

Yup. In fact, this accident could be blamed on them.
At least one of the Fukushima reactors was originally scheduled for decommissioning prior to the accident. However, because it's so damn difficult to get new modernized plants with improved safety features built, and the population still needs electricity - the end result is that old clunkers like Fukushima (which consisted of some of the oldest operating reactors on the planet) get service life extensions.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by phantomfive · 2013-12-05 05:05 · Score: 1

I am held AGHAST by the biblical-level hysteria that is circulating about Fukushima these days. It is being served up and replicated with the relish of the street-corner preacher with an end-of-world sign. Every die-off of fish is related (ignore the Atlantic), the melting starfish (never mind it's happening worldwide), from mammals to narwhals there is some serious confirmation bias being stirred.
It's like global warming. Probably the same people are whipping up the hysteria, too.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Uecker · 2013-12-05 06:43 · Score: 1

Hysteria or not, as a physicist, I am more AGHAST by the fact that you think the blogs you cite somehow provide an impartial account of the facts. For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels. While this subject to discussion, your first blog simply claims this is a myth. Therefor it is misrepresenting the state of scientific knowledge and I would personally not trust this source even a little bit.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Urza9814 · 2013-12-05 11:38 · Score: 1

For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels.
If you're actually a physicist I'd expect you to comprehend the fact that there are different definitions of "harmful". Most people would not consider the radiation your body naturally produces or the radiation from a TV to be "harmful". According to the US government, 5,000 millirems/yr is safe -- i.e., "not harmful".
Also, that blog doesn't seem to actually says that low levels are not harmful. It says they are "essentially safe". Those are somewhat distinct concepts.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by TheRealHocusLocus · 2013-12-05 13:39 · Score: 1

How about we send Hocus here to help clean it up for 2-3 years, and then see what he has to say. I bet $10 it wont be the same.
Sure, why not? But unfortunately for me, there is no shortage of willing people with my skill level and no call for such help. There is not even any need to move a great many people through the site to perform brief but extremely dangerous tasks such as were faced by the Liquidators of Chernobyl.
Besides, I beat you to it, while discussing the decommissioning of the San Onorfe plant here at Slashdot. What I said then bears repeating as it applies equally to Fukushima:
"In a shrinking economy you will find more people willing to face the risks and just get it done. There is a real shortage these days of people and methods that just get out there and do things.
Seriously, I would be willing to go there and take a higher than occupationally permitted cumulative dose of radiation to help them cask the fuel and transport it, reduce the plant to rubble and turn this intricate and beautiful industrial complex into an ugly, desolate public park with horrid little shrubs, useless fountains and despicable art. I'd demand a high wage that would deliver enough money for that span to set my life on a much better course.
We have ways to handle and safely transport highly radioactive substances. Those that exist and better ways we would invent. Life without risk is not worth living, and a world without risk-takers is a world bereft of heroes. Would that be a better world?
The real problem is that there is nowhere to ship and store the casks of waste, so the good people of San Diego country cannot obtain the closure they desire at any price."
I am confident that Japan will find a safe place to store the Fukushima fuel, reactor parts and even the most irradiated rubble and topsoil. The press will stir a furor over it but the people in charge will see it is done and done properly.
I envy them that, and for shame. In the United States nuclear energy has been done properly for years, except for one thing -- the one thing that our government promised plant operators it would do, and did not do -- provide a safer place to store spent fuel than the plants themselves.

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Uecker · 2013-12-05 15:29 · Score: 1

Ofcouse a very small dose will not be very dangerous. Still it is believed to be harmful. This is the basis of the "as low as reasonably practicable/achievable" principle which is a guiding principle with respect to protection from ionizing radiation. Above website claims this a myth, i.e. there is not even a very small risk whatsoever from a small amount of radiation. This is not the mainstream opinion, which assumes that there is a risk proportional to the dose. And yes, this makes a difference: I.e. one X-ray is not a problem, but you should not have unnecessary X-rays because the risk accumulates. This is also relevant in the case of large release of radioactive into the environment. This is usually quickly diluted, so that the additional exposure to each person is extremly small. But because a very large number of persons might be affected, you can statistically calculate that some are expected to die as the direct result of this exposure.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by TheRealHocusLocus · 2013-12-05 17:32 · Score: 1

For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels. While this subject to discussion, your first blog simply claims this is a myth. Therefor it is misrepresenting the state of scientific knowledge and I would personally not trust this source even a little bit.
Lissen up party people! DJ Galileo is in the house!
Do you choose your area of residence upon careful consideration of a map showing natural background radiation sources, which vary significantly? Would you refuse a medical procedure such as an X-ray? Have you ever refused to spend 4 hours in an airplane at 30,000 feet? If any of these are a NO, then whilst in the comfortable state of belief in the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis (LNT) you are living your life on a principle that there is such thing as 'acceptable risk'.
A precautionary principle (in the case of LNT, agreement to apply the model despite hard evidence) can seem like a wise thing to do when faced with unknowns. But when public policy is built on such a hypothesis, or it is bought and sold as 'fact', life can become very dangerous. Not dangerous in the sense of mad science, but mad statistics.
It's just a way to 'hide' the noise of inconclusive studies and leave the scientific job unfinished.
What of 'acceptable benefit'? I would challenge anyone come up with any argument against the widespread adoption and use of nuclear technology that cannot be directly correlated into an argument as against the use of fire itself. Something that does not boil down to, because I like the one thing but not the other.
___
Energy is fire. Fire is life. We can neither afford nor want to be thrown back to the stone age.
There is more than one way to do nuclear energy. Please set aside these three hours,
Act I -- Our Friend the Atom [1957]
Act II -- Thorium Remix [2011]
My letters on energy:
To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate
To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Uecker · 2013-12-05 18:28 · Score: 1

For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels. While this subject to discussion, your first blog simply claims this is a myth. Therefor it is misrepresenting the state of scientific knowledge and I would personally not trust this source even a little bit.
Lissen up party people! DJ Galileo is in the house!
Do you choose your area of residence upon careful consideration of a map showing natural background radiation sources, which vary significantly? Would you refuse a medical procedure such as an X-ray? Have you ever refused to spend 4 hours in an airplane at 30,000 feet? If any of these are a NO, then whilst in the comfortable state of belief in the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis (LNT) you are living your life on a principle that there is such thing as 'acceptable risk'.
You are beating up a staw man. I never said there is no acceptable risk or even that low doses of radiation are not acceptable in some situations.
Also you are confusinga few things in a very fundamental way: The LNT is a theory based on our understanding the processes happening when ionizing radiation hits living cells. It can be used predict the risk for very low doses by extrapolating data obtained for higher doses. As such it does not tell what is an 'acceptable risk' is or not. It states that there is a risk proportional to the dose. This is what most experts believe is a reasonable good approximation of reality. If instead we would believe that there is no risk at low doses, we would tell people that they can X-rays just for fun and would not even have to think about 'acceptable risk'. Please read up about radiation protection and the term "As Low As Reasonably Achievable".
Ofcourse LNT might be wrong at very low doses and the extrapolation might be wrong. It probably needs some modification to take some non-linear effects into account. Still, there are very good reasons to believe that there is a small risk even at extremly low doses. Also please note that I did not comment about nuclear policy at all. All I was saying is that your source misrepresents the actual state of the scientific discussion. Presumably, because it has an agenda. And so do you, rather obviously.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by nojayuk · 2013-12-05 20:20 · Score: 1

Actually no. The oldest reactor at Fukushima Daiichi, no. 1 was about 40 years old but still operating problem-free and it was likely to get a ten-year licence extension after inspection. The average working life of 1970s-era reactors looks to be about 50 years or more; in a few cases economics and the dash for gas are getting some smaller facilities like Vermont Yankee (a 600MWe single-reactor plant) shut down. Reactors 2, 3 and 4 at Fukushima Daiichi were more modern designs and had at least ten years life left in them before the tsunami hit. Reactors 5 and 6 were built in the 1980s and were totally undamaged but they will be decommissioned as the site is considered inoperable in toto.
As for new modernised reactors designs Japan has three new reactors under construction at various stages of completion and its newest complete reactor came on-line a few years ago (2005, I think). The delay in building new reactors is due to the fact the older models are still operating safely and that reduces the demand for new ones. Gas is cheap at the moment as is coal and that also cripples the case for new nuclear builds because of the very large upfront costs of licencing and building any new reactors (which are expected to have a service life of 60 years).
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-12-06 08:15 · Score: 1

The hysteria is whipped up by the more extreme hippy enviromentalists and their patsies in the ignorant media and governments
Don't forget the fucking socialists and liberals, who have an innate desire to see everything good in this world fall to ruin so that they can place as many people in concentration camps and then execute them in their pursuit of thir desire to see as much death as possible. You left that out. My point is that your statement is perhaps a tad hysterical itself.
Now try to have a couple less espressos each day.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by TheRealHocusLocus · 2013-12-06 17:17 · Score: 1

You are beating up a staw man. I never said there is no acceptable risk or even that low doses of radiation are not acceptable in some situations.
Truly sorry about that. I do skitter about and fly off with my agenda hanging out sometimes.
I do appreciate the quandary faced by diagnosticians and those trying to establish occupational exposure guidelines, these measurements do matter. There was a time when even shoe stores had fluoroscope X-ray machines children would play with after school, emitters were much stronger and few doctors used lead aprons. Some hypothesis -- preferably a provable one -- is necessary. The "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" is a good effective dose of common sense intended to become a policy and legal framework, but what numbers and equations will we plug into it?
It may be that for every hundred workers exposed to some small level of radiation -- aside from the horde that is happy with playing it really safe, there may be some dozen who are actively hoping that allowable 'safe' limits can be raised, with sound supporting reasons, so they do not have to live with the regulatory Sword of Damocles hanging so close above their heads. I would be one of those. Nuclear energy sounds a lot safer than some of the potentially lethal hazards I face daily.
You are right to pose there might be a non-linear risk curve hidden in the noise (of low dose risks). There are proposals to reconcile low-dose adjustments to LNT in such a way that it does not present such a hard 'barrier' when conflating dose with mortality, and (perhaps, me guessing) from a consensus that in a field of exponential or even quadratic relationships, drawing a straight line through anything more complicated than cow-counting is uncomfortable.
A Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor (DREF) attempts to half risk per unit dose at low doses or low dose rates (or both) from its point on the linear scale. Arbitrary but probably closer to reality. NASA takes it down to the organ level and calculates a career limit. Add to that cancers that may lie dormant, held in check by the body's own immune responses and you have a lot of 'noise' and extra screening to sift through.
Maurice Tubiana, MD has compiled an excellent 'fact check' on LNT The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data which summarizes many sources (167 ref citations!) to conclude that there is no (small) elephant in the living room. He even covers nine studies that suggest that low does may exhibit Hormesis (a beneficial effect).
As you might guess, finding evidence of hormesis was astounding and is a hot research potato. But an ecological study done by an outspoken Bernard_Cohen is mentioned on the DREF page, emphasis mine:
"Efforts to confirm directly the effects of indoor radon have led to mixed and highly controversial conclusions. One class of studies, termed ecological studies, looks for correlations between the average radon level in a region and the lung cancer fatality rate. In the largest and best known of these studies, covering 1,729 counties in the United States, Bernard Cohen finds the county-by-county lung cancer rates to be inversely correlated with average radon levels. Although many readers have interpreted this study as suggesting hormesis, Cohen limits his conclusions to saying that the results refute the linearity hypothesis. This study covered most of the US population, and therefore the statistical uncertainties are small

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Re:Fukushima NO-HYPE information sources by doom · 2013-12-11 05:20 · Score: 1

Hey, someone actually read the article. Cool.
Yeah, that quote complaining about anti-nuclear hyperbole is one of the things I liked in the story. (You know, I thought that reputable newspapers had standards for words like "disaster", and they would refuse to use it if they didn't have evidence of massive deaths... but the rules are different on anti-nuclear news).
But I've been gradually coming to the conclusion that you want to be careful about making a claim like "no one died because of Fukushima", not because it's wrong (it might not be quite right, but it's certainly a defensible position), but because you can't get anyone to believe you. The people you're trying to convince will just file you in the "crazy" bin, and shut-down their ears. We've got to tug on the edge of the Okrent window a little more gently than that.

Fukushima news will become scarce by vix86 · 2013-12-05 00:30 · Score: 5, Informative

This will get little coverage in news outlets around the world, but its worth spreading and this article is as good as any to mention it. The Japanese Lower House, in the Diet, passed a bill which set up a National Secrets law. Essentially it is an anti-whistleblower law. It has many of the usual sections present in other countries save for one. The bill sets forth that all information dealing with "nuclear energy" will be considered a national secret and releasing any information without the oversight of the government will basically be illegal.

This means that if something bad is happening at the Fukushima plant, then we have to rely on someone doing the moral thing and telling the world and then going to jail.

The bill still has to go through the Upper House but it's likely to pass without much opposition even though the media and the public have been strongly opposed to it. It seems very likely that the bill is there to cover up any bad information that might tarnish Japan or TEPCO's image.

Japan state secrets bill on track to become law despite protests

Re:Fukushima news will become scarce by Luckyo · 2013-12-05 01:38 · Score: 1

It's a good thing that all such findings can simply be passed over internet to journalists over the border of the country anonymously. Or just posted on twitter/pastebin.
Re:Fukushima news will become scarce by bob_super · 2013-12-05 05:15 · Score: 1

Let me use my 5-ring divination technique ... Yep, no bad news at all starting 366 days before summer 2020.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 01:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

That post's own source article says quite the opposite, that the water will only be returned to the Pacific after treatment. Not exactly being honest with the readership, there.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

The Status of the Cleanushima Fuck-Up ? by Mister+Liberty · 2013-12-05 01:14 · Score: 1

Sorry.

Self-justifying "coping mechanism" bull by Dogtanian · 2013-12-05 01:17 · Score: 1

Humour is a coping strategy. If people are not allowed to make jokes about stuff that scares them it gets much scarier for them.

Oh, fuck off.

Most of the time I see that argument parrotted on Slashdot, it's being intentionally misused some borderline sociopathic asshole that's just made an insensitive joke about something that happened on the other side of the world and been called out on it.

Sure, we all know that you made that sick joke about that tragedy in the Philippines/China/wherever that'll never affect your home in Buttfuck, Illinois (which you'll have forgotten about by the time you move on to the next news item) as a "coping strategy". It's because you were scared by it.

Bullshit.

We all know that people closely affected by events (or feel themselves likely to be affected) often take solace in black humour- fair enough. We also know that many people are just dicks that like to make sick jokes about stuff that doesn't affect them personally. Anyone in the latter group trying to justify themselves and place themselves *above* their critics with a self-righteous appropriation of the "non-PC coping mechanism" argument is full of it.

Live with it.

He's 90 miles from the site, he's closer to living with it than you are. Unless you're actually living in the bloody reactor, I think he's more entitled to lecture people like you than vice versa.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).

Re:Self-justifying "coping mechanism" bull by Sarten-X · 2013-12-05 02:58 · Score: 1

Joking about such a tragedy is not a nice and cheerful thing to do. I've never claimed to be a nice and cheerful person, though.
Japan is the only country to have a nuclear bomb detonated on civilians. A significant percentage of the population was directly affected by those blasts and the fallout, and in the decades that followed those same victims got to see the terror of radioactivity go from being a horror to a power source... but the trauma isn't forgotten. Godzilla was a horror movie, exhibiting the terror Japan saw (and still sees) in all things nuclear.
Now those fears are real yet again. No, Fukushima's leaks haven't been terribly dangerous, and radiation levels are still in the typical range of most vegetables, but the fear is back in full force. If life were a horror movie franchise, this is the point in the sequel where the new characters start doing the same things we saw in the first movie. Nothing too bad has happened yet, but we know it's coming...
Life isn't a movie, though. Religion aside, we aren't here to entertain some external audience. After the horror is over, we still have to live on this spinning rock, and there's still a wide spectrum of things that can go wrong. Ultimately, we won't make it out alive, and we all know that.
Why, then, must we be miserable, just because of misery? Why must we suffer our misfortunes alone? As humans, we have evolved to share our fortunes (good or bad) as a society. Talking is therapeutic, but what more is there to say? "Thousands died, and now I'm sad" is a good way to start depression, but not really a conversation.
That is the job of dark humor. For a few fleeting moments, a simple joke provides human contact outside the bleak devastation of a disaster. Perhaps you chuckle at the juxtaposition, or perhaps you get angry at the insensitivity, or maybe, just maybe, you start a dialog on a tangential topic.
The horror is still there. The fear is still lurking in the background. The risk hasn't changed... but now you're not facing them alone. We are all still living on this spinning rock, together, and the curse of fate just happened to land on you this time. We'll pick up the pieces together and move on. Next week, it might be my turn. Please, come talk to me too, even if all you can say is adding insult to my injury. It's your injury, too, and this spinning rock has lost a bit more of its brilliance. In my moment of darkness, remind me that the rock keeps spinning, and its brilliance keeps coming back. Remind me that my species will live on.
I'm an asshole. I will make jokes about anyone or anything at any time... because I care.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Self-justifying "coping mechanism" bull by Dogtanian · 2013-12-05 07:18 · Score: 1

Not sure which direction you're coming from here. Are you the AC who I was replying to, or someone who lives near to the Fukushima plant, or someone else just making a point?

What you say may all be true, but I already acknowledged this:-

We all know that people closely affected by events (or feel themselves likely to be affected) often take solace in black humour- fair enough.
That wasn't what was being argued against.

What I *was* very clearly calling BS on was people who blatantly aren't remotely near, affected by nor even genuinely concerned by the events they're "joking" about- quite the opposite- making sick or insensitive jokes (i.e. the "asshole" bit you refer to) then intentionally misinterpreting the "non-PC coping mechanism" argument to justify their assholery and divert attention from it onto the other person.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Self-justifying "coping mechanism" bull by Dogtanian · 2013-12-05 07:31 · Score: 1

Feel free to joke about the disaster you were involved in and anything legitimately related; I wasn't claiming you shouldn't, assuming you genuinely feel it gives you some empathy or involvement in what was being joked about, and isn't just being used as a self-justifying excuse for being a dick about other people's misfortune one doesn't care about.

He needs to get a thicker skin and no he doesn't have any additional entitlement to lecture us.
Are you the original AC that replied to him? The AC was the one that was telling *him* "deal with it", and *I* (not the OP) said that he has less moral authority to lecture people like that than the OP does.

Anyway, as I pointed out, the beef I had was with people quite obviously misinterpreting the "coping mechanism" argument to their own ends, basically using it as an excuse to self-righteously turn the tables and be holier-than-thou to people who call them out on tasteless jokes.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).

Re:FUKISHIMA !! THERE IS A JOKE IN THERE !! by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 01:37 · Score: 1

Fukushima Industries is a company that happens to originate in Fukushima. They make refridgerators. They're not TEPCO.

I gleaned this from reading the link you provided.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Fukushima clean-up? Really? by kbdd · 2013-12-05 01:42 · Score: 1

Should it be the Cleanushima fuk-up instead?

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by FriendlyLurker · 2013-12-05 01:46 · Score: 1

that the water will only be returned to the Pacific after treatment.

What treatment are you talking about?! If you call the plan for dilution a "treatment" then yeah. other than that how exactly to they plan to "treat" irradiated water before dumping it in the ocean?

Re:bad BIOS saga continues - 12/13 by Sarten-X · 2013-12-05 01:54 · Score: 1

APK has taken up journalism.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by GarethIwanFairclough · 2013-12-05 01:57 · Score: 2

that the water will only be returned to the Pacific after treatment.

What treatment are you talking about?! If you call the plan for dilution a "treatment" then yeah. other than that how exactly to they plan to "treat" irradiated water before dumping it in the ocean?

Erm, nothing? Because diluting it to the point where it's not a big deal is the plan? It's not as if the stuff is going to magically re-concentrate itself after dilution and sea dumping. Hell, they could probably just dump it all into the depths of the pacific as is without dilution. It's a lot of ocean with a relatively tiny amount of radioactive material going into in as a one off. Really, it's just about the safest thing they can do with the stuff.

By the way, where did they get the info saying that the fuel had "burned through" the pressure vessel? Afaik, that is essentially impossible.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by FriendlyLurker · 2013-12-05 02:19 · Score: 1

Soooo diluting the irradiated water, with clean water, before dumping it into more water (i.e. the ocean) is all Ok because it has been "treated". The mind boggles.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by Anonymous Coward · 2013-12-05 02:30 · Score: 1

You don't understand how radiation works, but that's ok. The world needs ditch diggers too Billy.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by nojayuk · 2013-12-05 02:41 · Score: 5, Informative

They are filtering the waste water and using ion exchange systems, zeolite cartridges and the like to remove the radioactive materials in solution. That's how they're "treating" contaminated water (irradiation isn't the problem).

The water itself isn't radioactive, it's just hydrogen and oxygen. There may be some tritiated water in there but very very little, same with radioactive isotopes of oxygen. The contamination they are dealing with is radioactive particles in some cases, in others chemical substances in solution like cesium and strontium. Until the levels for all the contaminants are below international standards then the water can't be released into the sea.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by Curunir_wolf · 2013-12-05 03:24 · Score: 1

If it is all tossed into the Marianas Trench, you won't be endangered by any radiation from it at all unless you happen to wander within a few feet from it. How often do you go about cruising down the MT in James Cameron's yellow submarine, if I may so boldly ask?

But ... but ... Godzilla!

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by Zeromous · 2013-12-05 05:02 · Score: 1

Actually yes, that's how the Universe also deals with Radiation.

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by jafac · 2013-12-05 05:52 · Score: 1

Simple fix. Raise the international standards for contamination thresholds. Oh wait - they did that.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by GarethIwanFairclough · 2013-12-05 07:39 · Score: 2

Soooo diluting the irradiated water, with clean water, before dumping it into more water (i.e. the ocean) is all Ok because it has been "treated". The mind boggles.

To be quite blunt, "Yes". In fact, it doesn't even really need to be treated or diluted . You could pour it right into the middle of the pacific ocean and it would do no harm. That's just how big the ocean is and how low the concentration of radioactive material in the coolant is already, before you even dump it in the ocean. The extra filtering and dilution is a wee bit overkill. "Overkill" being what governments around the world (for some odd political reason) mandate that anything "nuclear" has to do in order to be allowed to even possibly exist as a concept.

Also, the water itself is not "irradiated". The radiation emitters are suspended within the water. As long as we can bring the concentration down, then it becomes far less dangerous than it already is. But oh wait, it's already barely anything to worry about. What boggles my mind, is why they haven't dumped the water into the pacific already. I think it would be best to transfer the water onto a ship for disposal a few hundred miles or so out to sea, just to stop any chance that the particles of the radioactive materials have of being washed back up on land in any sort of concentration above "one or two atoms per litre" (the actual unit escapes me).

RTFA by mosb1000 · 2013-12-05 07:55 · Score: 2

Look, the article you're commenting about says they're going to treat the water with their Advanced Liquid Processing System prior to discharge. That will take most of the radionuclides out. I know most people can't be bothered to do even basic research before making unfounded claims, but maybe you should consider it? In cases like this, where there are real risks, unfounded fear mongering will detract from those risks in the long-run.

Re:TL;DR version : Dump it all in the ocean by nojayuk · 2013-12-05 10:29 · Score: 1

International laws about dumping all sorts of waste materials at sea stop the Japanese from dumping the contaminated waste water there. They're making efforts to stop contaminated ground water escaping the site into the ocean, with variable results hence all the large storage tanks full of water being built on the site. In fact much of this water is actually safe to swim in or even drink by radiation standards adopted from the World Health Organisation and similar groups but it has enough measurable contamination to make it against the law to simply pour it down a drain into the sea.

Re:Fukushima information sources -- correction by TheRealHocusLocus · 2013-12-05 12:39 · Score: 1

Atomic Power Review is written by a guy named Will Davis. It says so on the right sidebar. Who is Rod Adams?

Oops, clipboard snafu, it ate a whole paragraph and a link. There were supposed to be two links,

Rod Adams hosts Atomic Insights blog and The Atomic Show podcast. He has some very good coverage of Fukushima and its aftermath and lately he has been taking fear-mongers Robert Alvarez and Arnie Gundersen to task.

Will Davis' Atomic Power Review has scaled down its Fukushima coverage as of late, but in the archives you will find some detailed articles with week-by-week coverage.

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>

Re:FUKISHIMA !! THERE IS A JOKE IN THERE !! by Sockatume · 2013-12-05 21:28 · Score: 1

Believe it or not some people do not know this, see "Fukushima" and assume it's the company that ran the reactors.

--
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?

Slashdot Mirror

The Status of the Fukushima Clean-Up

102 of 136 comments (clear)