Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #270 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 2:50pm

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

In the US, for example, direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with an additional $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar energy combined over the same period totalled only $5.5 billion.

So you can see how expensive, toxic and unsafe the nuclear power industry is.

How does it compare with Coal fired power stations?

If anything good comes of this incident, I'd hope that people would start to think about the issues. I just hope that they don't fall back to the coal-fired option, because quite clearly that is much more deadly in the long run. If the world ends up with more renewable energy as a result of this, then something will have been achieved.

Somehow, I am skeptical of that outcome.

The fossil fuel indistry receives even more than thenulcear power industry.

The point is when people dismiss alternative energy sources as TOO expoensive or inefficient they should look at the subsidies that the mainstream energy sectors receive.

I have always stated from the beingining in here that the 2 things that need to be done to create an even playing field is to remove totally the subsidies that the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors receive AND remove the corrupt bias in the banking sector that refuses to fund and finance alternative energy options (and by alternative I dont mean Thorium reactors, or psuedo sequetered coal fired power palnts - I mean sustainable, renewable energy options - we all know what they are)

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #271 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:05pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

The fossil fuel indistry receives even more than thenulcear power industry.

The point is when people dismiss alternative energy sources as TOO expoensive or inefficient they should look at the subsidies that the mainstream energy sectors receive.

I have always stated from the beingining in here that the 2 things that need to be done to create an even playing field is to remove totally the subsidies that the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors receive AND remove the corrupt bias in the banking sector that refuses to fund and finance alternative energy options (and by alternative I dont mean Thorium reactors, or psuedo sequetered coal fired power palnts - I mean sustainable, renewable energy options - we all know what they are)

For Australia, I would add combined cycle natural gas generation to the options, at least short-term. It's not fully sustainable but it's a step in the right direction. The problem is that we're running out of time.

The mining and oil lobby is extremely strong in Australia. It's not just problems with finance - it goes right to the heart of mainstream political parties as well. Important reports on renewable energy tend to sit unnoticed on desks.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #272 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:15pm

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

The fossil fuel indistry receives even more than thenulcear power industry.

The point is when people dismiss alternative energy sources as TOO expoensive or inefficient they should look at the subsidies that the mainstream energy sectors receive.

I have always stated from the beingining in here that the 2 things that need to be done to create an even playing field is to remove totally the subsidies that the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors receive AND remove the corrupt bias in the banking sector that refuses to fund and finance alternative energy options (and by alternative I dont mean Thorium reactors, or psuedo sequetered coal fired power palnts - I mean sustainable, renewable energy options - we all know what they are)

For Australia, I would add combined cycle natural gas generation to the options, at least short-term. It's not fully sustainable but it's a step in the right direction. The problem is that we're running out of time.

The mining and oil lobby is extremely strong in Australia. It's not just problems with finance - it goes right to the heart of mainstream political parties as well. Important reports on renewable energy tend to sit unnoticed on desks.

Personally, I don't think the 'current' level of renewable technology will provide full 24/7 baseload power....So right now, a mix of power sources is our best bet...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #273 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:20pm Geothermal might be a good option too in terms of steady baseload. At least there is very little in the way of storage requirements compared to solar and wind options. That's just natural nuclear power effectively.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #274 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:42pm

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:05pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

The fossil fuel indistry receives even more than thenulcear power industry.

The point is when people dismiss alternative energy sources as TOO expoensive or inefficient they should look at the subsidies that the mainstream energy sectors receive.

I have always stated from the beingining in here that the 2 things that need to be done to create an even playing field is to remove totally the subsidies that the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors receive AND remove the corrupt bias in the banking sector that refuses to fund and finance alternative energy options (and by alternative I dont mean Thorium reactors, or psuedo sequetered coal fired power palnts - I mean sustainable, renewable energy options - we all know what they are)

For Australia, I would add combined cycle natural gas generation to the options, at least short-term. It's not fully sustainable but it's a step in the right direction. The problem is that we're running out of time.

The mining and oil lobby is extremely strong in Australia. It's not just problems with finance -

it goes right to the heart of mainstream political parties as well. Important reports on renewable energy tend to sit unnoticed on desks.

I would agree that Natural Gas should form an increased part of the mix, for Australia, in terms of base load power generation. I also agree that it will only provide a relatively short to medium bandaid solution and that time is ticking away!

However, it is in the Transport area where there are long term transition problems, to move away from liquid Fossil Fuels and very few, if any, effective & viable solutions!

Regrettably, both major party's seem "hell bent" on maintaining the status quo in Energy, including export large amounts of Coal & Gas to China, when it should remain where it is, for future Australian consumption.

Does anyone it government understand, THAT THESE ENERGY RESOURCES, WILL SHORTLY BE WORTH, MORE THAN GOLD!!!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #275 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:59pm

Getting back to Fukushima. Some word from the French team on the ground-

Quote:

On the stabilization of the reactor site and beyond:
"If there are orders of magnitude that I would like to share with you, they are the following: the
return to a more or less acceptable level of safety on-site is a question of weeks, and, no doubt, of
months. The management of the contamination outside the plant - the plant clearly is a lost site -
beyond, around the plant, it is a question of years if not of decades.

Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of the
French nuclear society.

Also:

Quote:

The International Atomic Energy Agency has
reported that levels of Cesium-137 in areas outside the emergency evacuation zone (especially near Iitate Village, 40 kilometers—24 miles away) are more than twice as high than levels the Soviets established for relocation from the Chernobyl area. The IAEA said cesium levels are up to 3.7megabecquerels per square meter (MBq/sq. m) in that area. Soviet guidelines required relocation when Cesium levels reached 1.48 MBq/sq. m. This is adding to pressure on the Japanese government to expand the evacuation zone.

That's the hot-spot that was reading about 10uSv/hr, located 40km to the North. They are going to have to evacuate that area pretty soon. At that rate of exposure, they will reach an annual dose of 88mSv, which is 38mSv greater than the occupational limit. The limit in the General population is likely to be about 7mSv per month. I would say that anyone remaining in that area had already exceeded the annual limit of 1mSv for the general population by a factor of 300%.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #276 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 4:33pm

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:59pm:

Getting back to Fukushima. Some word from the French team on the ground-

Quote:

On the stabilization of the reactor site and beyond:
"If there are orders of magnitude that I would like to share with you, they are the following: the
return to a more or less acceptable level of safety on-site is a question of weeks, and, no doubt, of
months. The management of the contamination outside the plant - the plant clearly is a lost site -
beyond, around the plant, it is a question of years if not of decades.

Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of the
French nuclear society.

Also:

Quote:

The International Atomic Energy Agency has
reported that levels of Cesium-137 in areas outside the emergency evacuation zone (especially near Iitate Village, 40 kilometers—24 miles away) are more than twice as high than levels the Soviets established for relocation from the Chernobyl area. The IAEA said cesium levels are up to 3.7megabecquerels per square meter (MBq/sq. m) in that area. Soviet guidelines required relocation when Cesium levels reached 1.48 MBq/sq. m. This is adding to pressure on the Japanese government to expand the evacuation zone.

That's the hot-spot that was reading about 10uSv/hr, located 40km to the North. They are going to have to evacuate that area pretty soon. At that rate of exposure, they will reach an annual dose of 88mSv, which is 38mSv greater than the occupational limit. The limit in the General population is likely to be about 7mSv per month. I would say that anyone remaining in that area had already exceeded the annual limit of 1mSv for the general population by a factor of 300%.

The last I heard, was that the Japanese government were not extending their evacuation zone, at least not yet!

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #277 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:47pm

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 4:33pm:

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 3:59pm:

Getting back to Fukushima. Some word from the French team on the ground-

Quote:

On the stabilization of the reactor site and beyond:
"If there are orders of magnitude that I would like to share with you, they are the following: the
return to a more or less acceptable level of safety on-site is a question of weeks, and, no doubt, of
months. The management of the contamination outside the plant - the plant clearly is a lost site -
beyond, around the plant, it is a question of years if not of decades.

Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of the
French nuclear society.

Also:

Quote:

The International Atomic Energy Agency has
reported that levels of Cesium-137 in areas outside the emergency evacuation zone (especially near Iitate Village, 40 kilometers—24 miles away) are more than twice as high than levels the Soviets established for relocation from the Chernobyl area. The IAEA said cesium levels are up to 3.7megabecquerels per square meter (MBq/sq. m) in that area. Soviet guidelines required relocation when Cesium levels reached 1.48 MBq/sq. m. This is adding to pressure on the Japanese government to expand the evacuation zone.

That's the hot-spot that was reading about 10uSv/hr, located 40km to the North. They are going to have to evacuate that area pretty soon. At that rate of exposure, they will reach an annual dose of 88mSv, which is 38mSv greater than the occupational limit. The limit in the General population is likely to be about 7mSv per month. I would say that anyone remaining in that area had already exceeded the annual limit of 1mSv for the general population by a factor of 300%.

The last I heard, was that the Japanese government were not extending their evacuation zone, at least not yet!

...and they will pay dearly for this decision in future cancer and health claims

Back to top

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #278 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:52pm

****NEWS FLASH*****AUSTRALIAN PRESS*******

THE Japanese government withheld the release of data showing that levels of radiation more than 30 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant exceeded safe levels, broadcaster NHK reported Monday citing official documents.

My my, why is this NOT surprising

It seems like the brave Greenpeace group that are driving as close to the fukushima plant as possible taking Geiger Counter readings were CORRECT

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #279 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:02pm

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:52pm:

****NEWS FLASH*****AUSTRALIAN PRESS*******

THE Japanese government withheld the release of data showing that levels of radiation more than 30 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant exceeded safe levels, broadcaster NHK reported Monday citing official documents.

My my, why is this NOT surprising

It seems like the brave Greenpeace group that are driving as close to the fukushima plant as possible taking Geiger Counter readings were CORRECT

Well if that's the same as my post 275, it has been known for days.

I told you there was a hotspot well before Greenpeace. It was never withheld.

Well there is this from March 30, so the Australian is a little late :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-japan-radiation-idUSTRE72T781201103...

Quote:

(Reuters) - Radiation measured at a village 40 km from Japan's crippled nuclear plant exceeded a criterion for evacuation, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday, the latest sign of widening consequences from the crisis.

The finding could increase pressure on Japan's government to extend the exclusion zone beyond 20 km (12 miles) around the Fukushima power plant, which has leaked radioactive particles since it was hit by a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

Criticised for weak leadership during Japan's worst crisis since World War Two, Prime Minister Naoto Kan has said he is considering enlarging the evacuation area to force 130,000 people to move, in addition to 70,000 already displaced.

I would say that it was a bad decision to ignore the guidelines, but I doubt if there is any significant increase in cancer rates given that the total dose is well within the rates for radiological workers.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:12pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

mozzaok Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 6741 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #280 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:41pm Quote: I doubt if there is any significant increase in cancer rates given that the total dose is well within the rates for radiological workers Do the risks rise for pregnant women, infants, or children muso, or are they considered pretty safe for all the people, irrespective of health condition, or age?
Back to top	OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma! IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #281 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:51pm

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:52pm:

****NEWS FLASH*****AUSTRALIAN PRESS*******

THE Japanese government withheld the release of data showing that levels of radiation more than 30 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant exceeded safe levels, broadcaster NHK reported Monday citing official documents.

My my, why is this NOT surprising

It seems like the brave Greenpeace group that are driving as close to the fukushima plant as possible taking Geiger Counter readings were CORRECT

Well if that's the same as my post 275, it has been known for days.

I told you there was a hotspot well before Greenpeace. It was never withheld.

Well there is this from March 30, so the Australian is a little late :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-japan-radiation-idUSTRE72T781201103...

Quote:

(Reuters) - Radiation measured at a village 40 km from Japan's crippled nuclear plant exceeded a criterion for evacuation, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday, the latest sign of widening consequences from the crisis.

The finding could increase pressure on Japan's government to extend the exclusion zone beyond 20 km (12 miles) around the Fukushima power plant, which has leaked radioactive particles since it was hit by a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

Criticised for weak leadership during Japan's worst crisis since World War Two, Prime Minister Naoto Kan has said he is considering enlarging the evacuation area to force 130,000 people to move, in addition to 70,000 already displaced.

I would say that it was a bad decision to ignore the guidelines, but I doubt if there is any significant increase in cancer rates given that the total dose is well within the rates for radiological workers.

From what I gather, the Japanese government declined to accept the IAEA recommendation to increase the evacuation zone, following these readings.

That was not a good decision!

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #282 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:20pm

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

From what I gather, the Japanese government declined to accept the IAEA recommendation to increase the evacuation zone, following these readings.

That was not a good decision!

True, but as far as I can tell, nothing was withheld. That village was referred to as a hotspot very early on the piece. I've been following the monitoring results.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Foolosophy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1171
Australia
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #283 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:23pm

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:51pm:

muso wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:52pm:

****NEWS FLASH*****AUSTRALIAN PRESS*******

THE Japanese government withheld the release of data showing that levels of radiation more than 30 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant exceeded safe levels, broadcaster NHK reported Monday citing official documents.

My my, why is this NOT surprising

It seems like the brave Greenpeace group that are driving as close to the fukushima plant as possible taking Geiger Counter readings were CORRECT

Well if that's the same as my post 275, it has been known for days.

I told you there was a hotspot well before Greenpeace. It was never withheld.

Well there is this from March 30, so the Australian is a little late :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-japan-radiation-idUSTRE72T781201103...

Quote:

(Reuters) - Radiation measured at a village 40 km from Japan's crippled nuclear plant exceeded a criterion for evacuation, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Wednesday, the latest sign of widening consequences from the crisis.

The finding could increase pressure on Japan's government to extend the exclusion zone beyond 20 km (12 miles) around the Fukushima power plant, which has leaked radioactive particles since it was hit by a huge earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

Criticised for weak leadership during Japan's worst crisis since World War Two, Prime Minister Naoto Kan has said he is considering enlarging the evacuation area to force 130,000 people to move, in addition to 70,000 already displaced.

I would say that it was a bad decision to ignore the guidelines, but I doubt if there is any significant increase in cancer rates given that the total dose is well within the rates for radiological workers.

From what I gather, the Japanese government declined to accept the IAEA recommendation to increase the evacuation zone, following these readings.

That was not a good decision!

It will turn out to be a criminal decision

Greenpeace is the only organisation to my knowledge that is assisting the Japanese people by accepting food samplings from them for testing. The results may be useful in any future litigation and law suites. If your rich and/or smart enough you should consider having some of your typical food items tested for various radioactive isotopes - especially Idonie129/131, Cesium137, Strontium90 and even Plutoniuum

You can see the corporate profit motive continue to play a role in how this disaster is portrayed in the public

Its just disgraceful - and to see people online act as apologists and trivialisers of a major radiological incident is pathetic to say the least

I am really quire ashamed to be even engaging in conversation with them

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #284 - Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:28pm

mozzaok wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:41pm:

Quote:

I doubt if there is any significant increase in cancer rates given that the total dose is well within the rates for radiological workers

Do the risks rise for pregnant women, infants, or children muso, or are they considered pretty safe for all the people, irrespective of health condition, or age?

Good point. Pregnant women are more susceptible to radiation, and the risk to infants is greater. Still, I don't know what other precautions were taken. I know that drinking water was withheld for a time in that area because it was just over the maximum guidelines for infants. Milk and leafy vegetables were also withheld.

The NIRS has been providing some community information on decontamination techniques etc.

I'm surprised that they didn't decide to evacuate Iitate given the elevated dose rates.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged