Fukushima Apocalypse

GDR writes: I don't disagree with any of that but the experts put this plant where they did; it looks like the kept it going longer than they should have; we've got radioactive waste well out into the Pacific along with other links still occurring 2 years later.

But that's just it. I'm willing to bet money that the people behind the decision to keep it going longer than it should have were politicians, corporate executives, and capitalists. This is actually the eternal struggle between experts and Mitt Romney.

Again, I have to point to the Katrina incident. Would it be fair to say that the experts were responsible for nothing being done to prevent the levee failure? I say no. It was ultimately the decisions of the politicians and capitalist investors to ignore the engineers and their warnings.

This is why I've always supported the idea that we let the real experts make the ultimate decisions in their respective fields. For example, healthcare and medical decisions should ultimately be done by doctors, not Mitt Romney. Decisions regarding roads and bridges should ultimately be done by engineers, not Mitt Romney. Etc.

It makes no sense that people who know nothing about the respective subject should be making the decisions about it.

For example, healthcare and medical decisions should ultimately be done by doctors, not Mitt Romney President Obama. Decisions regarding roads and bridges should ultimately be done by engineers, not Mitt Romney President Obama.

(Mitt Romney lost the election.)

Obama, too. Romney strike a bigger nerve in me than Obama.

This is from the BBC.

Government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said an estimated 47bn yen ($473m, £304m) would be allocated to the project.

The leaks were getting worse and the government "felt it was essential to become involved to the greatest extent possible", Mr Suga said.

The plant was crippled by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The disaster knocked out cooling systems to the reactors, three of which melted down.

Water is now being pumped in to cool the reactors, but storing the resultant large quantities of radioactive water has proved a challenge for plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco).

Again, I have to point to the Katrina incident. Would it be fair to say that the experts were responsible for nothing being done to prevent the levee failure?

There is plenty of blame to go around. The eventual occurrence of an earthquake of the magnitude that damaged the reactor in that area was just as certain as that a Katrina like hurricane would hit New Orleans. Yet the reactor was built there anyway. Building up the levy system in New Orleans to withstand such a flood would have taken a huge expense, and engineers take those things into account just as do politicians.

Unless you are able to point to the discussion and politics of the day in each case, you are not making your point. You are just handwaving.

not Mitt Romney.

Well, not Mitt Romney of course.

It makes no sense that people who know nothing about the respective subject should be making the decisions about it.

Many decisions are multi-discipline, with the "best" answer being highly subjective. A viable system is one where the experts inform the decision makers is often the best one. I certainly don't want the military making all of our use of force decisions.

Looks like the government is going to build an ice wall whatever that will look like.

Crippled Fukushima reactor to get ice wall

NoNukes writes: A viable system is one where the experts inform the decision makers is often the best one. I certainly don't want the military making all of our use of force decisions.

You misunderstand me. I am certainly not advocating others from outside the said discipline not have a voice.

What I said was the decision should ultimately be made by someone from the said discipline.

When it comes to issues that involve many disciplines, then the person or people who make the final decision should be someone from one of the dominant disciplines involved, not a career politician or corporate head whose only concern is the bottom line.

And yes, I don't deny that I'm naïve. What's your point?

And yes, I don't deny that I'm naïve. What's your point?

The point is that engineers make mistakes too. You have yet to show that engineers did not make the decisions that let to the locating of the Fukushima reactor, and you've simply assumed without evidence that engineers should be allowed to spend all the money necessary to make New Orleans flood proof.

Each of those decisions has financial, economic, and social impact. Why is it only the technical component that you think requires expertise?

NoNukes writes: The point is that engineers make mistakes too. You have yet to show that engineers did not make the decisions that let to the locating of the Fukushima reactor, and you've simply assumed without evidence that engineers should be allowed to spend all the money necessary to make New Orleans flood proof.

Hm... I see that this is more of a reading comprehension problem than anything else. I clearly said I was willing to bet money. Betting does not in anyway shape or form imply stating something as fact. If this were the case, Vegas would have gone broke long ago.

I said I was willing to bet money that the ultimate decision behind fukushima reactor that led to the current mess was made by non-engineers because based on my experience engineers don't make the decisions. They design, calculate, etc. and submit their proposals. It's usually the corporate heads and politicians that make the final decisions.

Each of those decisions has financial, economic, and social impact. Why is it only the technical component that you think requires expertise?

Where did I specifically state that it was only the technical component that required expertise? Again, we have a case of reading comprehension problem.

Back when I was fresh out of college, there was going to be floodings in the area. My company sent us out to various areas to help with the flood control efforts.

Here's the thing. Cops and firefighters (zeus bless them) tend to think they know everything. And they tend to have a problem understanding elevation. When we arrived at the scene, we saw that they had already stacked up the sandbags 3 levels up everywhere. Get it? Top of the hill 3 levels up. Bottom of the hill 3 levels up. We tried to talk them out of making it that way and... well you can guess the rest.

I'm no nuclear scientist and I'm certainly no nuclear reactor engineer. But based on my experience of struggles with know-it-all authority figures, I'm willing to bet the same struggles happen everywhere and higher up.

We don't have to look too deep to see politicians not being able to grasp good science. Take the moon base, for example. Everyone in the scientific community knows having a moon base is the stupidest idea for a launch mission to mars. And yet the last 3 presidents have touted it as if we need a moon base in order to explore mars.

This is an evolution vs creation forum, yes? How comfortable are you letting tea party politicians decide to "teach the controversy" or not?

said I was willing to bet money that the ultimate decision behind fukushima reactor that led to the current mess was made by non-engineers because based on my experience engineers don't make the decisions.

And what was the advice of those engineers?

You didn't just speculate or bet, you went further to use the incidents as support for your proposition that engineers should be making all decisions that have a technical component.

In other news. this is a documentary on the children with cancer and precaner due to the problems and Fukushima. It is banned in Japan.

http://www.a2documentary.com/

So in addition to:
Nuclear power plants shouldn’t be built near populous zones. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed on fault zones. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed near tsunami risk-areas. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants should be held to high safety regulations and strict monitoring. They aren’t.
Nuclear Powerplants should have adequate safety backups. They don’t.
Nuclear Powerplants should NOT be operated with known design flaws. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants should not store spent fuel rods in non-reinforced, un-secure pools. They are.
Nuclear powerplants can be prone to terrorists
Operating nuclear powerplants are prone to incompetence,
Operating over-sized nuclear powerplants are prone to sheer greed,

. . . nuclear powerplants are ALSO susceptible to . . . jellyfish?

quote:

---

Jellyfish wave shuts down Swedish nuke reactor
Large Swedish nuclear reactor forced to shut down after huge jellyfish wave clogs water pipes

Operators of the Oskarshamn nuclear plant in southeastern Sweden had to scramble reactor number three on Sunday after tons of jellyfish clogged the pipes that bring in cool water to the plant's turbines.

http://finance.yahoo.com/...huts-down-swedish-133755093.html

---

It's interesting, then, that despite all that you've mentioned, nuclear power still causes the fewest deaths per unit of power generated across all alternatives, including solar, wind, hydroelectric, coal, oil, gas, and so on.

"Jellyfish" is an irrelevant aside; the cause of the problem in this case is that cooling water intake pipes are clogged. Any number of things can clog a pipe.

But what's the end result? The power plant shut down. Because it was being monitored, and because there were adequate safety measures in place to recognize the problem and react to it.

I'll also note that no terrorist has ever managed to involve a nuclear power plant or anything related to nuclear power in any terrorist act, despite your claim of vulnerability. Harmfully radioactive material is more readily available in major hospitals than nuclear power plants, and yet we still don't see "dirty bombs."

Nuclear powerplants, even outdated designs, include multiple redundant safeties. You'll note that Fukushima, arguably the worst nuclear disaster in recent memory (since Chernobyl, at least, so depending on your definition of "recent"), was the result of an earthquake followed by a tsunami. That's literally the absolute worst-case scenario anyone could envision for a nuclear power plant to endure short of an actual Godzilla attack...and yet not a single person has died or is expected to die due to the ensuing failures.

Please do remember that the Fukushima plant didn't just up and melt down under normal operating conditions due to poor oversight or human error or "greed." It failed because it got hit by an earthquake and then a tsunami. An oil-fired plant would have caused an environmental disaster in those circumstances. A hydroelectric dam would likely have broken and caused its own massive devastation.

There are arguments to be made regarding nuclear power, dronester. It's not perfect, and it can be better, with modern technology and engineering that learns from previous mistakes.

But a string of claims that amount to little better than suggestive lies are not a way to make such arguments.

. . . nuclear powerplants are ALSO susceptible to . . . jellyfish?

Well, they can be a bit of a bitch:

.

quote:

---

Large Swedish nuclear reactor forced to shut down after huge jellyfish wave clogs water pipes

---

I can see how something like the above pic could clog water pipes.

Rahvin writes: It failed because it got hit by an earthquake and then a tsunami. An oil-fired plant would have caused an environmental disaster in those circumstances. A hydroelectric dam would likely have broken and caused its own massive devastation.

So what, it irradiated everything around it and now it is a shit storm that will have tremendous health consequences for who knows how long.

Is it safer than hydro-electric power, yes. Is it immune to mother natures wrath? No.

Given that when a dam breaks it wipes the slate clean, nature can come back and reclaim the environment.

Can the same be said of radio active materials leeching into the ground and sea?

I know, I know Bikini atoll is a wonderful haven and tourist destination!