Actually, I do have a 3 year old son and evacuated my family from my house North of Tokyo back on 3/15 (and feel vindicated now that the radiation contamination maps show our area got hit quite severely . ..).
Sorry, my post was an attempt at sarcasm and was playing off the Japanese government saying that the ocean was contaminated, but since people do not drink salt water there is no problem (people DO eat radioactive isotopes when it contaminates their food, and they are impacted by contaminated salt water when they eat fish). This is Slashdot, so anything that could be construed as anti-nuclear (which, apparently even measuring radiation in Tokyo is here . ..), will be modded to hell, so I was trying to be subtle . . .
Or, if I were living in Tokyo like the original poster, I could measure my area for FREE with the help of the Safecast community, as I posted earlier. But never let trivial facts get in the way of your blind dogma . . .
And thanks for the confirmation that Slashdot is full of a bunch of pro-nuke shills who are so insecure that they cannot even have a rational, non-sensational discussion on public monitoring of radiation . . .
Wow, that must be pretty embarrassing . . . being in YOUR field and having never heard of Safecast, the first community network for monitoring radiation. That area could be measured for free with the help of "experts." Perhaps an "expert" such as yourself should recommend people contacting a groups like that instead of sticking your nose up and saying their concerns are not worth being addressed?
But I understand your need to mystify measuring radiation. I mean, if measuring radiation becomes so easy that it just becomes another phone app, then how are you going to pay off that student debt of yours?
"Slashdot is one of the few places where you can get rational discussion about nuclear energy - everywhere else is full of misinformation and fear-mongering."
I believe the term you are looking for is "echo chamber." Yes, EVERYWHERE ELSE is fear-mongering. Slashdot . . . lead the way to eternal enlightenment . . .
"Anyone being honest would tell the submitter that spending money on a geiger counter is completely unnecessary from a safety standpoint."
Of course, let us completely ignore the possibility of a nonprofit organization taking measurements for FREE, as it supports your argument. And yes, some guy called "werepants" saying everything is okay is superior than just measuring the area so that you know there is no risk, for sure. . . .
"This isn't politics - this is honesty. Nuclear is safer than virtually all other sources of energy, radiation is a limited and manageable threat, and it is cleaner and more cost effective than most alternatives. By any objective measure, we should be pursuing it, but people who don't understand the science get scared because radiation is invisible and scary."
Right, and when did this start becoming an argument for or against nuclear power? Thanks for proving my point that this IS all about politics . ..
And yes, finally, you are patronizing people for being scared of "invisible" radiation but at the same time telling them they are wasting their time trying to measure it. If anything, shouldn't you support more people trying to measure radiation in their areas so that it is no longer "invisible" and scary? Your political bias is self defeating . . .
Right, but you are still just throwing out assertions and statements without any supporting evidence in your posts. For instance, specifically where am I being rude and presumptuous? Oh, and more presumptuous than your statement that an area has no possibility of being radioactively contaminated even though no one has tested for radiation yet?
Just as a hypothetical, though, if one did have a defense mechanism towards having their own ideas challenged, wouldn't claiming the other party was being too rude and presumptuous to debate with be a likely manifestation of said defense mechanism?
Why would it not be scientific if he were to get help from Safecast? Would that not at least be more scientific that just believing your opinion that you claim is undeniable fact (based on zero actual observation)?
Dogma is defined as an opinion considered "unquestionably true" by the holder. Saying your post is not dogma alone, as if such a statement does not require specific supporting arguments because it is "unquestionably true," only strengthens the argument that you are just spewing dogma in this thread.
I think we can all see why your views on this subject are so narrow and rigid . . . as soon as you start feeling any unpleasantness associated with having your views challenged, it is time to leave because of the other guy's "attitude."
Alright, then. Enjoy your usual routine of visits to the various echo chambers that make you feel unquestionably right . . .
"However, contacting them would not help him, because he does not have a problem in the first place"
Since when was scientific observation inferior to political dogma!? Maybe he would feel better having objective measurements rather than just trusting you, who has nothing to lose (and probably live thousands of miles away). Maybe that, in itself, has value to him.
Safecast have found it worth their time to start measuring parts of Tokyo. Who knows what and where the yakuza have been dumping in the last 50 years!? How does his or anyone else testing threaten your love affair with nuke power?
Nice, so you consider yourself an "enthusiast" in this area, but you were unaware of the first community of radiation monitoring enthusiasts? Care explaining why you considered yourself qualified to respond to his post then?
No, the poster was asking how best to go about it. The correct geek answer was to tell him to get involved with Safecast. Your non-geek answer of "forget about it" indicates you are not up to date on state of the radiation measuring community. That, in itself, is to be expected of Slashdot posts, but then moderators blinded by politics mod your post up and, for a while, your post represents the only modded-up response to the question. That is why Slashdot in broken when it comes to anything nuclear related . . .
Alright, why not advise that he BORROWS one from an organization then? Like from Safecast?
And what misunderstanding? Maybe he has a kid that likes to play and eat mud and he noticed the 57 microSv/hr hotspot in Kashiwa. Who knows wtf is going on around Tokyo, but woudn't a legitimate geek response be to scientifically test the area, just in case? Your response is either non-geek like (for a geek site) and/or just playing "nothing to see here, folks" shill-speak.
If this were any other topic that required technology, the majority of highly modded posts would point to various resources on how to approach the technology. Some posts would even include first hand accounts. However, if it is dealing with nuclear power, which apparently the majority of Slashdoters are completely sold on, the highest modded posts are, "don't bother." Any ideas on the discrepancy? If you LIKE the technology, then shouldn't you be trying to get more people involved? What geek hasn't wasted $300 on some device they didn't really need? Why is it not worth it this time and who are you to judge that for a fellow geek?
People don' t eat mud, right!? Neither do people eat radioactive caesium, strontium, or plutonium. See, no problem! Man and radioactive isotope can peacefully coexist!
You should contact Safecast. I believe they will even lend you a device and the data will be incorporated into their map.
Oh, yeah, and you asking Slashdot this question is like asking PETA how to skin a deer. Hope you have the persistence to scan through all the highly modded posts insulting your intelligence to actually find useful answers to your question . . .
Speaking of "social-science methods", I think he is attempting some kind of vulnerability exploit on the brains of his audience:
"I think Americans just don’t know sometimes which Mitt Romney they’re dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he’s for Obamacare, and now he’s against it. I mean, we’ll wait until tomorrow and — and — and see which Mitt Romney we’re really talking to tonight"
Ouch, I think I need to go read some Bush-isms to recovery from that . . .
Right, so if energy infrastructure investments are just as simple as the laws of physics, why are YOUR investments any different? Yet you (and many people like you) have decided not to invest in a country that you have also claimed has an overblown accident (i.e. a discounted investment . . . representing any easy gain). Explain that.
Alright, up until now my main beef with you was your insulting arrogance towards Japan and the Japanese people. However, it seems that even your pro-nuke basis has some glaring flaws. Just to point out a few:
"Occasional meltdown creating unusable blocks of land for a period of time, it still uses less land
area than solar or wind per unit of power generated."
Really?! Is this the same thing? Did you ever consider the worst part of fallout (besides the fact that it is a public hazard) is not knowing completely what areas are impacted? That nice, neat circle around the plant you see, complete BS. ALL dangerous areas cannot be economically mapped to the detail necessary (at ground level). And, guess what, they are constantly MOVING, usually to important places like waste treatment facilities. It is kind of hard to have a society if your waste disposal plants are now too radioactive to function normally (and are piling up radioactive waste miles long).
"Nor does it create dependence on foreign imports"
Right, because nuclear plants run on unicorn horns, something Japan is abundant in. Oh, and Japan has very stable geological features for nuclear waste, so no need for creating a dependence on foreign exports of waste. . . (I am being sarcastic)
"The thing is that there currently isn't a credible replacement for nuclear power aside from other technologies with their own serious drawbacks."
Wow, really? This technology has been with us for over half a century and still only accounts for 13.5% of world power generation. Maybe every technology has serious drawbacks and different governments are weighing the costs and benefits carefully, just like you do with YOUR own investments. Their aggregate conclusion so far has been quite less extreme than yours and, accordingly, a significant majority are not using the technology to the level that "physics dictates." Maybe this issue is more complicated than a simple physics equation?
But, again, back to my main point . ..Japan does not need you, someone not even willing to invest in it himself, to be telling it what it needs to do. ALL investments require consideration of the risks and the risk preferences of all those involved (both of which are unique to the risk environment and people involved), not just YOUR investments. I really am curious how your brain is dealing with that cognitive dissonance of yours . . .
You are fine investing in your own continent, but you do not understand the overall risks enough to invest in Japan. Perfectly understandable.
However, what I find hard to understand is why you then feel like you know what the best energy policy is for Japan and what the true impact of the Fukushima accident to Japan will be. You do not even understand the risk enough to invest in the country, but that does not stop you from making arrogant claims on what the Japanese should invest in and how the Japanese people should react to the Fukushima accident. Curious how you live with such cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps the debate on this subject would not be so noisy if people limited their opinions within areas that they were actually willing to expose themselves to?
I am sorry, but your ignorance of Japan really shines if you think Tepco has always been unpopular. The Fukushima incident alone made Tepco, a company that had always kept a very high public image (probably higher than all other regional utilities in Japan), into the unpopular mess it is today. Before the accident, it was one of the most sought after employers for new graduates. After the accident, new graduates started quitting in disgust.
I also think your position on this accident does not support nuclear power in the long run and especially not in Japan (and this why the other pro-nukes I have spoken with seem to take a different approach). If Japan and Tepco did everything right and yet such a serious (and EXTREMELY costly) accident occurred, then really we are just saying that such accidents are inevitable at least every 50 years if you have 50 plants in such an environment. It may not be a tsunami next time, but something will happen. Why would Japan double their reactors so that they would risk such accidents every 25 years? Of course, your recourse is to then downplay the accident and blame the victims for being "emotional" (the governments approach, as well). However, truth be told, neither side will really know what the actual impact will be until 20 years from now. And stubbornly sticking with radiation exposure models created before DNA was discovered and that do not take into account localized tissue exposure to internal absorbed alpha/beta emitting radioactive particles will not cut it for this accident (talking about the need to adopt new technology . ..).
"I can't properly evaluate investments from another continent."
Alright, fair enough. When it is YOUR money at stake, suddenly we see a level of modesty and caution that we did not see before. Too bad it seems infinitely more difficult for you to be as modest when speaking about the nuclear industry of another continent . . . apparently you are more cautious with your own investments than you are with nuclear power (a very curious observation from a safe enough distance). I do have to say, the world would be a much better place if people were forced to back their views up with personal investment. A lot of unnecessary noise would be reduced in such debates as these.
Just FYI though, it was fairly established before the disaster that prices had already bottomed out from the 90's bubble. In fact, they were recovering from the impact of Lehman shock (though, of course, it was a much smaller impact).
Japan has recovered quickly from every disaster that has hit it in the last 70 years, including WWII. However, the sad truth is that the quick death of a nuclear blast is easier to recovery from than the slow death of a nuclear meltdown. Only time will tell, but I believe that Japan has been fundamentally changed by this nuclear disaster. The Japanese are obsessed with purity, refusing to eat foreign rice or even accept blood from foreigners (though the latter has been changing). Having their soil tainted over such a large area is the cruelest insult the culture could bear. My friend from Japan wrote me recently calling Japan "a lost tribe in the wilderness." For some cultures, the cost of such accidents are larger than a distant observer could possibly imagine. You see a resilient nation, I see a country that is now in perpetual shock. I know my words alone could never convince a person like you the subtle difference, but as someones constantly haunted by a life that could have been, I have no other recourse but to try.
I am amazed at how much effort you are putting into this thread . . . what is your real agenda? Nuclear imperialism? However, none of the pro-nukes I have come across so far have defended Japan so extremely. In fact, they have pointed out the mistakes of Japan (building close to fault lines and tsunami zones, idiotic emergency response). You are a bit of an extremist on your side. That makes me think you do not have direct industry experience (so "shill" comes to mind).
I find it telling that you never once point to something like corporate governance as a cultural characteristic supportive of nuclear technology. This is not a technology problem but a governance one. Again, it does not point to you being a veteran of the industry who has concluded that it is a necessary technology, even though it has risks (which you became aware of from working in the industry).
Finally, talk is talk, but how much have you invested in Japan since the disaster? My views indicate that I should have reduced my exposure after the disaster. I did, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars at present value. Your views indicate that you should have INCREASED your exposure to Japan after the disaster. How much JREITs did you purchase? If nothing, then it just points to you being a shill . . . completely removed from reality and living in your own fantasy world . . .
Your requirement that I provide non-Japanese information for an event that is taking place in Japan is pretty ridiculous. Local government information should be enough. I also have provided an anomalous radiation source in this thread (when no can get close to the fuel or even know where the fuel is at this point, how are they supposed to measure the temperature!?).
Anyway, you do not provide sources, do not understand Japanese, yet you act as if your opinion on this matter is superior. I cannot help but think your opinion on this is more politically motivated than scientifically motivated.
Prove how many have died from tobacco . . . or asbestos . . . (ad nauseam) This is a shill argument. The same argument has been made many times in the past for many different industries (up until the point major lawsuits were awarded to the victims).
I am amazed how you still seem so confident about your ideas on what is right for Japan, yet you are completely ignorant of Japan. That requires a special type of arrogance, beyond the usual Slashdotter. Are you by any chance British? That would make much more sense . . . if I were able to imagine a British accident when reading your prissy posts.
My interest in this issue is that I was a victim of the Fukushima accident (sorry, that's a fucking fact). My understanding is that your interest in this is that you are some kind of prick who thinks he knows better for the Japanese than anyone else based on his own ignorance of Japan. Oh, and you fucking support Edano and Fujimura laughing at kids being humiliated in school. Fuck you, again.
This event is taking place in JAPAN. If you are not willing to deal with Japanese (heard of google translate?), fine, but don't pretend to be a fucking expert on the matter then . . . Those are local government websites, even without knowing Japanese, I assume you can read numbers!?
Still, I am the only one who has bothered giving sources at this point, so I think that makes you the shill, and an ineffective one, at that. Why waste your time when the nuke industry obviously has better resources than you . . . ?
And, to be honest, the consensus of the industry seems to be that Japan "fucked up" for building on fault lines. And here you are, trying to downplay the whole situation. Kind of like how the Republican party has to deal with the embarrassing "birthers." Why not let the pros take care of the situation?
Right, got your point . . . "nukes are great for everyone, irregardless of culture, governance, or fault lines. If you are not for nukes, then you are a fucking pussy and idiot."
On behalf of the Fukushima victims (including myself): fuck you. You do a greater disservice to the pro-nukes effort with your "support." I respect many nuke supporters . . . you are not one of them.
Thanks, but I have 3 sources and you have 0. Did you bother looking at the numbers of INCREASING levels of radioactive iodine well after March? You write so matter-of-factly, but where are your facts? And how do you explain the facts I have presented?
Such writing styles are usually reserved for shills. Don't you know there is already a very organized nuke shill process? Why go to the hard work of replying to posts on/.?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I do have a 3 year old son and evacuated my family from my house North of Tokyo back on 3/15 (and feel vindicated now that the radiation contamination maps show our area got hit quite severely . . .).
.), will be modded to hell, so I was trying to be subtle . . .
Sorry, my post was an attempt at sarcasm and was playing off the Japanese government saying that the ocean was contaminated, but since people do not drink salt water there is no problem (people DO eat radioactive isotopes when it contaminates their food, and they are impacted by contaminated salt water when they eat fish). This is Slashdot, so anything that could be construed as anti-nuclear (which, apparently even measuring radiation in Tokyo is here . .
Or, if I were living in Tokyo like the original poster, I could measure my area for FREE with the help of the Safecast community, as I posted earlier. But never let trivial facts get in the way of your blind dogma . . .
And thanks for the confirmation that Slashdot is full of a bunch of pro-nuke shills who are so insecure that they cannot even have a rational, non-sensational discussion on public monitoring of radiation . . .
Wow, that must be pretty embarrassing . . . being in YOUR field and having never heard of Safecast, the first community network for monitoring radiation. That area could be measured for free with the help of "experts." Perhaps an "expert" such as yourself should recommend people contacting a groups like that instead of sticking your nose up and saying their concerns are not worth being addressed?
But I understand your need to mystify measuring radiation. I mean, if measuring radiation becomes so easy that it just becomes another phone app, then how are you going to pay off that student debt of yours?
"Slashdot is one of the few places where you can get rational discussion about nuclear energy - everywhere else is full of misinformation and fear-mongering."
.
I believe the term you are looking for is "echo chamber." Yes, EVERYWHERE ELSE is fear-mongering. Slashdot . . . lead the way to eternal enlightenment . . .
"Anyone being honest would tell the submitter that spending money on a geiger counter is completely unnecessary from a safety standpoint."
Of course, let us completely ignore the possibility of a nonprofit organization taking measurements for FREE, as it supports your argument. And yes, some guy called "werepants" saying everything is okay is superior than just measuring the area so that you know there is no risk, for sure. . . .
"This isn't politics - this is honesty. Nuclear is safer than virtually all other sources of energy, radiation is a limited and manageable threat, and it is cleaner and more cost effective than most alternatives. By any objective measure, we should be pursuing it, but people who don't understand the science get scared because radiation is invisible and scary."
Right, and when did this start becoming an argument for or against nuclear power? Thanks for proving my point that this IS all about politics . .
And yes, finally, you are patronizing people for being scared of "invisible" radiation but at the same time telling them they are wasting their time trying to measure it. If anything, shouldn't you support more people trying to measure radiation in their areas so that it is no longer "invisible" and scary? Your political bias is self defeating . . .
Right, but you are still just throwing out assertions and statements without any supporting evidence in your posts. For instance, specifically where am I being rude and presumptuous? Oh, and more presumptuous than your statement that an area has no possibility of being radioactively contaminated even though no one has tested for radiation yet?
Just as a hypothetical, though, if one did have a defense mechanism towards having their own ideas challenged, wouldn't claiming the other party was being too rude and presumptuous to debate with be a likely manifestation of said defense mechanism?
Why would it not be scientific if he were to get help from Safecast? Would that not at least be more scientific that just believing your opinion that you claim is undeniable fact (based on zero actual observation)?
Dogma is defined as an opinion considered "unquestionably true" by the holder. Saying your post is not dogma alone, as if such a statement does not require specific supporting arguments because it is "unquestionably true," only strengthens the argument that you are just spewing dogma in this thread.
I think we can all see why your views on this subject are so narrow and rigid . . . as soon as you start feeling any unpleasantness associated with having your views challenged, it is time to leave because of the other guy's "attitude."
Alright, then. Enjoy your usual routine of visits to the various echo chambers that make you feel unquestionably right . . .
"However, contacting them would not help him, because he does not have a problem in the first place"
Since when was scientific observation inferior to political dogma!? Maybe he would feel better having objective measurements rather than just trusting you, who has nothing to lose (and probably live thousands of miles away). Maybe that, in itself, has value to him.
Safecast have found it worth their time to start measuring parts of Tokyo. Who knows what and where the yakuza have been dumping in the last 50 years!? How does his or anyone else testing threaten your love affair with nuke power?
Nice, so you consider yourself an "enthusiast" in this area, but you were unaware of the first community of radiation monitoring enthusiasts? Care explaining why you considered yourself qualified to respond to his post then?
No, the poster was asking how best to go about it. The correct geek answer was to tell him to get involved with Safecast. Your non-geek answer of "forget about it" indicates you are not up to date on state of the radiation measuring community. That, in itself, is to be expected of Slashdot posts, but then moderators blinded by politics mod your post up and, for a while, your post represents the only modded-up response to the question. That is why Slashdot in broken when it comes to anything nuclear related . . .
Alright, why not advise that he BORROWS one from an organization then? Like from Safecast?
And what misunderstanding? Maybe he has a kid that likes to play and eat mud and he noticed the 57 microSv/hr hotspot in Kashiwa. Who knows wtf is going on around Tokyo, but woudn't a legitimate geek response be to scientifically test the area, just in case? Your response is either non-geek like (for a geek site) and/or just playing "nothing to see here, folks" shill-speak.
If this were any other topic that required technology, the majority of highly modded posts would point to various resources on how to approach the technology. Some posts would even include first hand accounts. However, if it is dealing with nuclear power, which apparently the majority of Slashdoters are completely sold on, the highest modded posts are, "don't bother." Any ideas on the discrepancy? If you LIKE the technology, then shouldn't you be trying to get more people involved? What geek hasn't wasted $300 on some device they didn't really need? Why is it not worth it this time and who are you to judge that for a fellow geek?
People don' t eat mud, right!? Neither do people eat radioactive caesium, strontium, or plutonium. See, no problem! Man and radioactive isotope can peacefully coexist!
You should contact Safecast. I believe they will even lend you a device and the data will be incorporated into their map.
Oh, yeah, and you asking Slashdot this question is like asking PETA how to skin a deer. Hope you have the persistence to scan through all the highly modded posts insulting your intelligence to actually find useful answers to your question . . .
Speaking of "social-science methods", I think he is attempting some kind of vulnerability exploit on the brains of his audience:
"I think Americans just don’t know sometimes which Mitt Romney they’re dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he’s for Obamacare, and now he’s against it. I mean, we’ll wait until tomorrow and — and — and see which Mitt Romney we’re really talking to tonight"
Ouch, I think I need to go read some Bush-isms to recovery from that . . .
Right, so if energy infrastructure investments are just as simple as the laws of physics, why are YOUR investments any different? Yet you (and many people like you) have decided not to invest in a country that you have also claimed has an overblown accident (i.e. a discounted investment . . . representing any easy gain). Explain that.
.Japan does not need you, someone not even willing to invest in it himself, to be telling it what it needs to do. ALL investments require consideration of the risks and the risk preferences of all those involved (both of which are unique to the risk environment and people involved), not just YOUR investments. I really am curious how your brain is dealing with that cognitive dissonance of yours . . .
Alright, up until now my main beef with you was your insulting arrogance towards Japan and the Japanese people. However, it seems that even your pro-nuke basis has some glaring flaws. Just to point out a few:
"Occasional meltdown creating unusable blocks of land for a period of time, it still uses less land area than solar or wind per unit of power generated."
Really?! Is this the same thing? Did you ever consider the worst part of fallout (besides the fact that it is a public hazard) is not knowing completely what areas are impacted? That nice, neat circle around the plant you see, complete BS. ALL dangerous areas cannot be economically mapped to the detail necessary (at ground level). And, guess what, they are constantly MOVING, usually to important places like waste treatment facilities. It is kind of hard to have a society if your waste disposal plants are now too radioactive to function normally (and are piling up radioactive waste miles long).
"Nor does it create dependence on foreign imports"
Right, because nuclear plants run on unicorn horns, something Japan is abundant in. Oh, and Japan has very stable geological features for nuclear waste, so no need for creating a dependence on foreign exports of waste. . . (I am being sarcastic)
"The thing is that there currently isn't a credible replacement for nuclear power aside from other technologies with their own serious drawbacks."
Wow, really? This technology has been with us for over half a century and still only accounts for 13.5% of world power generation. Maybe every technology has serious drawbacks and different governments are weighing the costs and benefits carefully, just like you do with YOUR own investments. Their aggregate conclusion so far has been quite less extreme than yours and, accordingly, a significant majority are not using the technology to the level that "physics dictates." Maybe this issue is more complicated than a simple physics equation?
But, again, back to my main point . .
You are fine investing in your own continent, but you do not understand the overall risks enough to invest in Japan. Perfectly understandable.
However, what I find hard to understand is why you then feel like you know what the best energy policy is for Japan and what the true impact of the Fukushima accident to Japan will be. You do not even understand the risk enough to invest in the country, but that does not stop you from making arrogant claims on what the Japanese should invest in and how the Japanese people should react to the Fukushima accident. Curious how you live with such cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps the debate on this subject would not be so noisy if people limited their opinions within areas that they were actually willing to expose themselves to?
I am sorry, but your ignorance of Japan really shines if you think Tepco has always been unpopular. The Fukushima incident alone made Tepco, a company that had always kept a very high public image (probably higher than all other regional utilities in Japan), into the unpopular mess it is today. Before the accident, it was one of the most sought after employers for new graduates. After the accident, new graduates started quitting in disgust.
.).
I also think your position on this accident does not support nuclear power in the long run and especially not in Japan (and this why the other pro-nukes I have spoken with seem to take a different approach). If Japan and Tepco did everything right and yet such a serious (and EXTREMELY costly) accident occurred, then really we are just saying that such accidents are inevitable at least every 50 years if you have 50 plants in such an environment. It may not be a tsunami next time, but something will happen. Why would Japan double their reactors so that they would risk such accidents every 25 years? Of course, your recourse is to then downplay the accident and blame the victims for being "emotional" (the governments approach, as well). However, truth be told, neither side will really know what the actual impact will be until 20 years from now. And stubbornly sticking with radiation exposure models created before DNA was discovered and that do not take into account localized tissue exposure to internal absorbed alpha/beta emitting radioactive particles will not cut it for this accident (talking about the need to adopt new technology . .
"I can't properly evaluate investments from another continent."
Alright, fair enough. When it is YOUR money at stake, suddenly we see a level of modesty and caution that we did not see before. Too bad it seems infinitely more difficult for you to be as modest when speaking about the nuclear industry of another continent . . . apparently you are more cautious with your own investments than you are with nuclear power (a very curious observation from a safe enough distance). I do have to say, the world would be a much better place if people were forced to back their views up with personal investment. A lot of unnecessary noise would be reduced in such debates as these.
Just FYI though, it was fairly established before the disaster that prices had already bottomed out from the 90's bubble. In fact, they were recovering from the impact of Lehman shock (though, of course, it was a much smaller impact).
Japan has recovered quickly from every disaster that has hit it in the last 70 years, including WWII. However, the sad truth is that the quick death of a nuclear blast is easier to recovery from than the slow death of a nuclear meltdown. Only time will tell, but I believe that Japan has been fundamentally changed by this nuclear disaster. The Japanese are obsessed with purity, refusing to eat foreign rice or even accept blood from foreigners (though the latter has been changing). Having their soil tainted over such a large area is the cruelest insult the culture could bear. My friend from Japan wrote me recently calling Japan "a lost tribe in the wilderness." For some cultures, the cost of such accidents are larger than a distant observer could possibly imagine. You see a resilient nation, I see a country that is now in perpetual shock. I know my words alone could never convince a person like you the subtle difference, but as someones constantly haunted by a life that could have been, I have no other recourse but to try.
I am amazed at how much effort you are putting into this thread . . . what is your real agenda? Nuclear imperialism? However, none of the pro-nukes I have come across so far have defended Japan so extremely. In fact, they have pointed out the mistakes of Japan (building close to fault lines and tsunami zones, idiotic emergency response). You are a bit of an extremist on your side. That makes me think you do not have direct industry experience (so "shill" comes to mind).
I find it telling that you never once point to something like corporate governance as a cultural characteristic supportive of nuclear technology. This is not a technology problem but a governance one. Again, it does not point to you being a veteran of the industry who has concluded that it is a necessary technology, even though it has risks (which you became aware of from working in the industry).
Finally, talk is talk, but how much have you invested in Japan since the disaster? My views indicate that I should have reduced my exposure after the disaster. I did, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars at present value. Your views indicate that you should have INCREASED your exposure to Japan after the disaster. How much JREITs did you purchase? If nothing, then it just points to you being a shill . . . completely removed from reality and living in your own fantasy world . . .
Your requirement that I provide non-Japanese information for an event that is taking place in Japan is pretty ridiculous. Local government information should be enough. I also have provided an anomalous radiation source in this thread (when no can get close to the fuel or even know where the fuel is at this point, how are they supposed to measure the temperature!?).
Anyway, you do not provide sources, do not understand Japanese, yet you act as if your opinion on this matter is superior. I cannot help but think your opinion on this is more politically motivated than scientifically motivated.
How do you like them apples?
Prove how many have died from tobacco . . . or asbestos . . . (ad nauseam) This is a shill argument. The same argument has been made many times in the past for many different industries (up until the point major lawsuits were awarded to the victims).
I am amazed how you still seem so confident about your ideas on what is right for Japan, yet you are completely ignorant of Japan. That requires a special type of arrogance, beyond the usual Slashdotter. Are you by any chance British? That would make much more sense . . . if I were able to imagine a British accident when reading your prissy posts.
My interest in this issue is that I was a victim of the Fukushima accident (sorry, that's a fucking fact). My understanding is that your interest in this is that you are some kind of prick who thinks he knows better for the Japanese than anyone else based on his own ignorance of Japan. Oh, and you fucking support Edano and Fujimura laughing at kids being humiliated in school. Fuck you, again.
Thanks for the reply, but since you are not providing sources, I find this thread a waste of my time.
This event is taking place in JAPAN. If you are not willing to deal with Japanese (heard of google translate?), fine, but don't pretend to be a fucking expert on the matter then . . . Those are local government websites, even without knowing Japanese, I assume you can read numbers!?
Still, I am the only one who has bothered giving sources at this point, so I think that makes you the shill, and an ineffective one, at that. Why waste your time when the nuke industry obviously has better resources than you . . . ?
And, to be honest, the consensus of the industry seems to be that Japan "fucked up" for building on fault lines. And here you are, trying to downplay the whole situation. Kind of like how the Republican party has to deal with the embarrassing "birthers." Why not let the pros take care of the situation?
Right, got your point . . . "nukes are great for everyone, irregardless of culture, governance, or fault lines. If you are not for nukes, then you are a fucking pussy and idiot."
On behalf of the Fukushima victims (including myself): fuck you. You do a greater disservice to the pro-nukes effort with your "support." I respect many nuke supporters . . . you are not one of them.
Right . . . Perhaps we should just thank each other for wasting each other's time . . . Thanks.
Thanks, but I have 3 sources and you have 0. Did you bother looking at the numbers of INCREASING levels of radioactive iodine well after March? You write so matter-of-factly, but where are your facts? And how do you explain the facts I have presented?
/.?
Such writing styles are usually reserved for shills. Don't you know there is already a very organized nuke shill process? Why go to the hard work of replying to posts on