Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

Shutdown leaves Japan without nuclear power

15 posts in this topic

Japan is switching off its last working nuclear reactor, as part of the safety drive since the March 2011 tsunami triggered a meltdown at the Fukushima plant.

The third reactor at the Tomari plant, in Hokkaido prefecture, is shutting down for routine maintenance.

It leaves Japan without energy from atomic power for the first time for more than 40 years.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the meantime, Japan has increased its fossil fuel imports, with electricity companies pressing old power plants into service."

Another victory for the flower huggers there, then. So an increase in CO2 emissions, and reliance on imports. Brilliant.

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An increase in CO2 emissions, but a lowering of radiation emissions. Is it a fair trade-off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the meantime, Japan has increased its fossil fuel imports, with electricity companies pressing old power plants into service."

Another victory for the flower huggers there, then. So an increase in CO2 emissions, and reliance on imports. Brilliant.

:no:

Why didnt they just construct higher sea walls its far cheaper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why didnt they just construct higher sea walls its far cheaper?

Because it was painfully demonstrated that large scale atomic energy is difficult to master in good times and certainly bound to catastrophe once the smallest detail goes haywire. That is why.

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are such an advanced civilisation....I feel it is now time we stepped up to the plate with better ways.

Taking forward only the best of our technologies. The issue of fuel has been bickered about for way too long.

As there is only one earth, it is obvious.....Time to come together in solutions.

Unfortunately,

whose in power are not interested in resolving the needs shared by us all. Cutting their noses off to spite their faces. Only seeing short term gains of their own pockets and power driven aims of the biggest grudge holding sociopaths history has seen.

When we turn this all around and see the truth of our flawed ways to date. We will be conflicted as to why so many had to struggle and suffer before we woke up and worked together for the greater good of human kinds duration here.

I really do believe we have the capabilities to resolve our energy problems yet I am frustrated by the lack of good will to do so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

An increase in CO2 emissions, but a lowering of radiation emissions. Is it a fair trade-off?

I don't think so. The radiation from nuclear plants is rather minimal, even including the radiation leakage from the Fukushima disaster (if that radiation is averaged over the lifetime of the power plant).

Many fossil fuels, especially coal, also release a large amount of radiation - there are plenty of radioactive isotopes in the earth. There is also radioactive radon in the atmosphere, fresh snow or rainfall will bring this down to the ground.

Because it was painfully demonstrated that large scale atomic energy is difficult to master in good times and certainly bound to catastrophe once the smallest detail goes haywire. That is why.

I don't call the Fukushima disaster a ``catastrophe'', at least in terms of the human cost.

Almost 16 000 people died in the tsunami and earthquake in Japan (see the wiki here: http://en.wikipedia....nami#Casualties).

As a result of the tsunami, the Chiba oil refinery practically exploded, 6 workers were badly injured (see here: http://www.cosmo-oil...0321/index.html).

As far as I know, only 2 people have died in the Fukushima incident, an that is because they were in the buildings at the time the tsunami struck (see here: http://www.dailymail...-confirmed.html)

In contrast, in the very article cited in the OP it suggests that Chernobyl caused a ``possible 4000 cancer cases''. Not cancer ``deaths'', cancer ``cases'', occurring over the 25 years since the Chernobyl disaster.

We live in an industrialized society; human apathy and laziness allows equipment to wear out, and bad things happen. In terms of injury, death, and sickness I believe that fossil fuel (especially coal) is worse than nuclear power.

The major aspect of nuclear power is that when something bad happens, the spread of influence is very easy to detect. Radioactive iodine is only really made in nuclear power plants; so the radiation cloud from Fukushima (or Chernobyl) is very easy to track no matter how dilute it is. The exact source of smog and other pollution is much harder to identify.

Edited by sepulchrave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't call the Fukushima disaster a ``catastrophe'', at least in terms of the human cost.

Almost 16 000 people died in the tsunami and earthquake in Japan (see the wiki here: http://en.wikipedia....nami#Casualties).

As a result of the tsunami, the Chiba oil refinery practically exploded, 6 workers were badly injured (see here: http://www.cosmo-oil...0321/index.html).

you mean that 400 square miles inhabitable for a longer period of time with the loss of living space and agricultural land is not a catastrophe?

I guess the people living in gyms in the neighboring areas beg to differ.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't think so. The radiation from nuclear plants is rather minimal, even including the radiation leakage from the Fukushima disaster (if that radiation is averaged over the lifetime of the power plant).

Many fossil fuels, especially coal, also release a large amount of radiation - there are plenty of radioactive isotopes in the earth. There is also radioactive radon in the atmosphere, fresh snow or rainfall will bring this down to the ground.

I don't call the Fukushima disaster a ``catastrophe'', at least in terms of the human cost.

Almost 16 000 people died in the tsunami and earthquake in Japan (see the wiki here: http://en.wikipedia....nami#Casualties).

As a result of the tsunami, the Chiba oil refinery practically exploded, 6 workers were badly injured (see here: http://www.cosmo-oil...0321/index.html).

As far as I know, only 2 people have died in the Fukushima incident, an that is because they were in the buildings at the time the tsunami struck (see here: http://www.dailymail...-confirmed.html)

In contrast, in the very article cited in the OP it suggests that Chernobyl caused a ``possible 4000 cancer cases''. Not cancer ``deaths'', cancer ``cases'', occurring over the 25 years since the Chernobyl disaster.

We live in an industrialized society; human apathy and laziness allows equipment to wear out, and bad things happen. In terms of injury, death, and sickness I believe that fossil fuel (especially coal) is worse than nuclear power.

The major aspect of nuclear power is that when something bad happens, the spread of influence is very easy to detect. Radioactive iodine is only really made in nuclear power plants; so the radiation cloud from Fukushima (or Chernobyl) is very easy to track no matter how dilute it is. The exact source of smog and other pollution is much harder to identify.

you mean that 400 square miles inhabitable for a longer period of time with the loss of living space and agricultural land is not a catastrophe?

I guess the people living in gyms in the neighboring areas beg to differ.

I suggest he swaps his own living conditions with theirs and then we can see him question his own reasoning for such a careless statement.

Edited by Blue Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean that 400 square miles inhabitable for a longer period of time with the loss of living space and agricultural land is not a catastrophe?

I guess the people living in gyms in the neighboring areas beg to differ.

As Sepulchrave said, it was hardly a disaster in terms of the loss of human life compared with the 15,000-19,000 people that lost their lives in the tsunami. Perhaps I could suggest that you two swap your living conditions for anywhere else affected by the tsunami, and then you can tell me that Fukushima was "catastrophic" compared to the destruction caused by the tsunami.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you come with us..... Are you really trying to have an argument over degrees/levels of catastrophe....WTF?

I have stated my frustrations previously. You demonstrate my point well, thank you.

Why are you trying to take it off topic? What do you have to gain?

Are you seriously pitching one horror against another?

How bizarre!

Edited by Blue Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you come with us..... Are you really trying to have an argument over degrees/levels of catastrophe....WTF?

I have stated my frustrations previously. You demonstrate my point well, thank you.

Why are you trying to take it off topic? What do you have to gain?

Are you seriously pitching one horror against another?

How bizarre!

I think trying to portray Fukushima as a catastrophe, whilst happily ignoring the widespread destruction all around it is incredibly callous. It comes across as people trying to use Fukushima as a massive landmark case against nuclear energy, when if you look at the facts, Fukushima was a tiny blip compared to what else occurred.

Personally I find it bad that Japan no has no nuclear energy. the amount of fossil fuels they must now be consuming must have jumped up significantly due to this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dougal

If the Fukushima incident is NOT a catastrophe, then what might be, in your opinion?

Your point that OTHER events, disasters, surround us is well taken, but it seems like you are making a semantic point, not a substantive one.

I live about 5 miles from a nuclear reactor and wish that I did not. Considering the implications of nuclear waste, I think it might have been a poor decision to embrace nuclear electrical generators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dougal

If the Fukushima incident is NOT a catastrophe, then what might be, in your opinion?

Your point that OTHER events, disasters, surround us is well taken, but it seems like you are making a semantic point, not a substantive one.

I live about 5 miles from a nuclear reactor and wish that I did not. Considering the implications of nuclear waste, I think it might have been a poor decision to embrace nuclear electrical generators.

I think that Fukushima was bad, but not nearly as bad as people are making out. When you look at what else happened due to the tsunami, and you consider when the reactors were built I feel that they survived incredibly well. When you consider that the reactors were built almost 30 years ago, and that safety measures have increased significantly since then, I feel that it shows that nuclear energy is not the big bad that some people portray it as. This isn't to say of course we shouldn't learn from our mistakes. Fukushima had the POTENTIAL to be catastrophic, however the way it's panned out certainly isn't as horrific as some people think.

On an aside, perhaps I'm a little off topic with bringing the tsunami into a conversation about nuclear energy, but it kinda riles me up a bit when people take Fukushima so out of context, practically ignoring the fact that the problem was caused by a natural disaster that killed so many people. So apologies for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think trying to portray Fukushima as a catastrophe, whilst happily ignoring the widespread destruction all around it is incredibly callous. It comes across as people trying to use Fukushima as a massive landmark case against nuclear energy, when if you look at the facts, Fukushima was a tiny blip compared to what else occurred.

Personally I find it bad that Japan no has no nuclear energy. the amount of fossil fuels they must now be consuming must have jumped up significantly due to this.

Hopefully a study will be created to look at the impact of the additional CO2 so that a cost benefit analysis can be scientifically stated. No room for the hysteria around nuke power...just a look at the numbers. I certainly can understand that the Japanese would want to do away with all nuke power but they, like the Germans, will have to face more pollution and higher energy costs. If they accept this then no one has a problem! :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.