Australian Politics Forum - Fukushima

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #645 - Nov 27^th, 2011 at 9:45am

Equitist wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 9:31am:

Sorry, but nukes are too powerful and therefore too dangerous for humans to play with - at least at this stage of our technological development.

Unfortunately, it seems as though humanity will need to face yet another unmitigated nuclear disaster, before the long-term safety of humans and our environment is put ahead of the short-term economic benefits of nukes.

Apparently, an inevitable BIG KABOOM of FUKUSHIMA wasn't big enough for most of those entrusted with making the relevant decisions. I suspect that this is because the real nature and extent of the disaster has been cynically- buried and/or under-reported.

Alas, we shall see! Meantime, I take some comfort that most of the world's nukes are located in the Northern Hemisphere - where they can share the grave risks amongst themselves - until something goes so wrong with nukes that causes millions (perhaps billions) of them to flee and head south en masse...

Well, there actually wasn't much a 'KABOOM' at Fukushima......And it now seems that the reports of radiation have been 'cynically' OVERstated.

The radiation reported in Tokyo, for example, had nothing to do with the Fukushima reactor....

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

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #646 - Nov 27^th, 2011 at 8:42pm

[quote I would love to be convinced that I am. Huh

'What's an unnatural helium nucleus compared to a natural one?

or - do you prefer natural poisons to unnatural ones?' - Muso

You're ASKING me??

Well it's smacking OBVIOUS.!!!!!

AND your comparison proves the point. You compare an unnatural 'helium nucleus" which ... not being a scientist, I don't see the relevance here, .....to an 'unnatural poison' !!! Grin

.... and ask would I prefer a 'natural'...?

Call me simple, but obviously, we'd all be better off WITHOUT the UNNATURAL. Roll Eyes

Heard of critical mass? Well you may not ever live to witness that tipping point, OR , it may well have already happened, !! but gone virtually unnoticed, except for a few people who are unable to beat off the public view, despite being able to PROVE the danger.

Well. You're oversimplifying the issue. - Muso [/quote]

I 'm in agreement with you there.!!
BUT - where is the error in my logic??? Huh

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #647 - Nov 27^th, 2011 at 8:48pm

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 8:42pm:

[quote I would love to be convinced that I am. Huh

'What's an unnatural helium nucleus compared to a natural one?

or - do you prefer natural poisons to unnatural ones?' - Muso

You're ASKING me??

Well it's smacking OBVIOUS.!!!!!

AND your comparison proves the point. You compare an unnatural 'helium nucleus" which ... not being a scientist, I don't see the relevance here, .....to an 'unnatural poison' !!! Grin

.... and ask would I prefer a 'natural'...?

Call me simple, but obviously, we'd all be better off WITHOUT the UNNATURAL. Roll Eyes

Heard of critical mass? Well you may not ever live to witness that tipping point, OR , it may well have already happened, !! but gone virtually unnoticed, except for a few people who are unable to beat off the public view, despite being able to PROVE the danger.

Well. You're oversimplifying the issue. - Muso

I 'm in agreement with you there.!!
BUT - where is the error in my logic??? Huh

[/quote]

I'm not sure Jalane...but I think Muso's point is that none of the by-products of nuclear power are 'unnatural'....
All the radioactive elements are part of nature and the periodic table...

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

Emma Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9853 OZ Gender:	Re: Fukushima - Consequences? Reply #648 - Nov 27^th, 2011 at 9:04pm gizmo??? Muso doesn't need you to explain his point, he needs to, sorry. '....All the radioactive elements are part of nature and the periodic table... ' gizmo This IS true. BUT !! nowhere in nature will you find the splitting of the atom ... all by itself. Not on Earth anyway.!! This is also true - Yes?
Back to top	live every day IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #649 - Nov 27^th, 2011 at 9:21pm

And - re consequences...!

It is not only meddling with nuclear energy which creates danger for us. Every unnatural substance WE CREATE, and add to our biosphere, adds to the load. Adds to the critical mass.!! Talking pesticides, steroids, polymers, plastics.. add your own.

It is my point that these things are like Frankenstein's Monster... only he got destroyed in the end. This story, maybe it'll be the scientists, and the rest of us natural beings, .. who get wiped. Roll Eyes

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #650 - Nov 28^th, 2011 at 5:42am

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 9:21pm:

And - re consequences...!

It is not only meddling with nuclear energy which creates danger for us. Every unnatural substance WE CREATE, and add to our biosphere, adds to the load. Adds to the critical mass.!! Talking pesticides, steroids, polymers, plastics.. add your own.

It is my point that these things are like Frankenstein's Monster... only he got destroyed in the end. This story, maybe it'll be the scientists, and the rest of us natural beings, .. who get wiped. Roll Eyes

I've always considered the Frankenstein story to have several levels...

Partly a failed experiment, but also a commentary on human fear of scientific advancement...

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: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #651 - Nov 28^th, 2011 at 9:28am

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2011 at 8:42pm:

[quote I would love to be convinced that I am. Huh

'What's an unnatural helium nucleus compared to a natural one?

or - do you prefer natural poisons to unnatural ones?' - Muso

You're ASKING me??

Well it's smacking OBVIOUS.!!!!!

AND your comparison proves the point. You compare an unnatural 'helium nucleus" which ... not being a scientist, I don't see the relevance here, .....to an 'unnatural poison' !!! Grin

.... and ask would I prefer a 'natural'...?

Call me simple, but obviously, we'd all be better off WITHOUT the UNNATURAL. Roll Eyes

Heard of critical mass? Well you may not ever live to witness that tipping point, OR , it may well have already happened, !! but gone virtually unnoticed, except for a few people who are unable to beat off the public view, despite being able to PROVE the danger.

Well. You're oversimplifying the issue. - Muso

I 'm in agreement with you there.!!
BUT - where is the error in my logic??? Huh

[/quote]

Well a helium nucleus is a Helium nucleus regardless of the source. Alpha particles originating from Radon gas in a natural environment are the same as any other alpha particles.

People have lived in these parts of the world for many years with no appreciable effect. However a lower exposure of exactly the same radiation can have greater effects if it's perceived to be a problem. In other words if well meaning activists come up with the shock horror factor.

People can die from cancer as a result of worry. It's a real effect. A person's attitude has an enormous effect on his or her health.

Let's take a hypothetical experiment. If you were to tell the population of a city, say Stockton NSW that they had been exposed to deadly hexavalent chromium, you would expect a certain amount of anxiety - and anxiety is not without consequence.

Now can you see what I'm getting at?

There are two components involved in the total risk. Peter Sandman calls them hazard and outrage. The outrage part is the psychological part.
http://www.psandman.com/

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Emma

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #652 - Dec 6^th, 2011 at 8:11pm

what do you call the latest, that I've heard.

That Fukushima, some part thereof, has been leaking dirty water into the Ocean - the Pacific I would imagine- in much greater volume than prev realised. This is waste which is likely to have contained significant amounts of strontium. That's all I caught, but, it can't be GOOD. It can't be necessary, or desireable.
I haven't missed your bit about psycho-somatic disrders - I just see it as all that relevant. Not compared to contamination of the earth.

Back to top

live every day

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Fukushima - Consequences?
Reply #653 - Dec 7^th, 2011 at 7:16am

Emma wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 8:11pm:

what do you call the latest, that I've heard.

That Fukushima, some part thereof, has been leaking dirty water into the Ocean - the Pacific I would imagine- in much greater volume than prev realised. This is waste which is likely to have contained significant amounts of strontium. That's all I caught, but, it can't be GOOD. It can't be necessary, or desireable.
I haven't missed your bit about psycho-somatic disrders - I just see it as all that relevant. Not compared to contamination of the earth.

Everything we do "pollutes" the Earth in some way, to some extent. For everything that we do, it's a balancing act. We balance risks - or at least we should.

We need to ask the hard questions in order to determine if the risk is significant or not. That's something I prefer to just assuming.

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 #654 - Dec 9^th, 2011 at 4:25pm

Tepco May Ask Govt to Buy Stake

Tokyo Electric Power Co may ask the government to buy a stake in the company to avoid a collapse under the weight of compensation claims for the Fukushima disaster, President Toshio Nishizawa said in an interview in the Tokyo Shimbun newspaper today.

“It’s one possibility,” Nishizawa told the newspaper in response to a question on whether the utility needs a capital injection. The interview follows a flurry of news reports yesterday suggesting a state-run fund will buy preferred shares in the company.

“It’s the beginning of the endgame for Tepco as the entity that exists right now,” said Penn Bowers, an analyst with CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets in Tokyo. The government may be close to nationalizing Tepco to spin off its viable assets, he said.

The March 11 nuclear disaster, the worst in 25 years, caused the evacuation of about 160,000 people and dumped radiation on farms and into the sea, contaminating food supplies. Tepco said it will outline a plan today to reorganize to meet claims that may total 4.5 trillion yen by March 2013, according to a government panel.

Tepco may also raise electricity prices to help pay for decommissioning the damaged reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, Nishizawa told the newspaper.

The company’s shares fell more than 10 percent yesterday after the Mainichi newspaper reported the company will be taken over by the government.

The shares have lost 88 percent of their value since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami wrecked its Fukushima Dai-Ichi atomic plant.

The government, which agreed to provide about 900 billion yen to support Tepco in November, is leaning toward buying shares because it’s becoming likely liabilities will exceed its assets, a situation that may result in the company seeking bankruptcy protection, the Mainichi report said.

Link -
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-09/tepco-may-ask-government-to-acquire-sta...
==============================================
Whichever way this is viewed, it is a disaster of epic proportions, the Public will pay, both coming & going and both the Japanese Politicians & TPTB, including those running TEPCO, should be hauled before the courts!

And, it would just be the Japanese Public that pays!

Back to top

IP Logged