Horrendous Earthquake / Tsunami in Japan

[Si Hunt]

I'm not outraged.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

No Si, didn't mean to imply you were, specifically.

I think I'm carrying over my frustrations from dealing with people on other forums with arguments involving radiation and the like. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. There is definitely a big problem in Japan right now with regard to their nuclear power stations, but it's not the apocalyptic, easily preventable disaster that some quarters are shouting about.

[Si Hunt]

So is radiation just like gas then, but more poisonous?

Si.

[Perry Vale]

I hope (possibly in vain) that the media and public will focus on the main issue: getting help to a country now in dire need of it, rather than focusing on the big nuclear bogeyman that has now reared its head.

Indeed. A friend of mine has just set up a 'Ban Nuclear Power Worldwide' Facebook page...

When someone else posted that it was one of the most realistic solutions to global energy needs, she replied "We are also stuck with thousands of dead bodies, who would rather be alive today. There must be other solutions to Global Warming!", which of course was soon pointed out by the OP as being caused by an earthquake and tsunami - not nuclear plants.

I'd say she's a fairly intelligent woman from what I know of her, but this (also) highlights your fears and comments quite distinctly.

[Si Hunt]

I bet most dead bodies wish they were alive today.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

Hmm, a rather more complex question than you might think. 'Radiation' as a blanket term is almost meaningless. There are different types and these travel in different ways and are stopped by different things. There is also the difference between radiation itself and radioactive material. If I walk past a source of radiation I will get irradiated but I will not carry radiation away with me. If I walk through a shower of radioactive dust I will not only get irradiated but will carry the radioactive dust away on me and spread it to other places. If the dust is emitting alpha radiation my skin will make an effective barrier against it and I'll probably be fine. If I inhale it and it gets inside me then I might have bigger problems. If it is emitting gamma radiation it will penetrate my skin and may cause problems there too. On the other hand, consider that if you inhale carbon monoxide at a certain level you will asphyxiate immediately.

The simple answer to your question is no it is not just like gas and it is not necessarily more poisonous, though it can be. The levels described at the site of the leak in Japan are pretty dangerous to an unprotected human after a couple of hours, however.

[Jon Masters]

Radiation glows green and gives you superpowers, or makes you grow very big.

<* runs away before Jason or Paul see this > .........

[Jason Thompson]

One thing it certainly does not do is behave anything like the way it is usually portrayed in fiction....

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.

[To quote a favourite film of mine]

[Rob McCow]

But it's precisely because people don't understand the potential effects of radiation that there's all this hysteria. I've got no idea whether things are going to get worse in Japan or whether it'll all be contained with minimal health risks. But the papers seem to have made their minds up already.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Papers sell more on hysteria than on rational stories.

I know the situation in Japan is serious, but this is no Chernobyl yet.

[SiHart]

The Daily Mail predicts Japan is heading for NUCLEAR APOCALYPSE. Hateful rag.

Si xx

[Jason Thompson]

I was somewhat dismayed to read in this morning's Metro that UK nuclear power plants are going to have a 'safety crackdown' to allay fears of a similar thinig happening over here. OK, yes, a review of safety practices is always a good idea, but for heaven's sake, the Japanese problem was caused by a natural disaster on a scale rarely seen in the world, and hardly likely to affect us ever anyway! It's like checking what defences we have in place in case of volcanic eruption, then kicking up a fuss when we find we have no defence against a pyroclastic flow from a major explosion.

Nuclear issues polarise opinion like almost nothing else on Earth. It doesn't matter if every newspaper in the world reports purely factual information about the risks and situations, some vocal group will always start on the emotive, hysterical, 'all nuclear is bad' line. Unfortunately, because it is easier to be afraid of something than to educate yourself in it so it is less frightening, the emotive stuff always garners a significant audience and always becomes a bigger voice than it rationally should be in any debate on the subject. I'm not saying nuclear power is not dangerous. Nor am I saying that there is no good reason for the fear of nuclear power in some cases: I know people who have suffered personal losses as a result of radiation-induced illnesses. It does not, however, warrant the hysteria that seems to come packaged with it these days.

I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: those nuclear plants have stood up pretty damn well to one of the biggest natural disasters the world has seen, and only one of them is having real issues with containment. The others are so far under control. Isn't that a pretty good demonstration of the decent engineering that went into making them?

And just to further illustrate the disproportionate way the media handles anything to do with nuclear things, has anyone seen a big news story lately about the other effects of the earthquake and tsunami? To read some papers now you'd think Japan has suffered a nuclear accident and that's about it. The fact that the disaster left thousands dead and many more homeless is just a small line somewhere in an article about the nuclear power plant.

[Jason Thompson]

The Daily Mail predicts Japan is heading for NUCLEAR APOCALYPSE. Hateful rag.

The Daily Mail is one of the most ignorant, arrogant, sensationalist pieces of crap journalism this country has ever produced. At least other tabloid rags aren't pretending to be serious periodicals when they fill their pages with rubbish. I doubt anyone working at the Daily Mail knows the first thing about it, and they probably all still think it's pronounced 'nucular'.

[SiHart]

Excellent posts Jason. I couldn't agree more.

Si xx

[Philipnet]

The issue is that the tsunami wiped out the backup diesel generator and the water supply. Without either one they could still keep the reactor cool, but without both of them that's a difficult task.

The reactor stopped generating power as soon as the earthquake hit, however it is still hot even though it's no longer producing any power.

And now they are pumping/dropping sea water on it in attempts to cool it, in full knowledge that the water will damage the reactor beyond repair.

[Philipnet]

Nuclear issues polarise opinion like almost nothing else on Earth. It doesn't matter if every newspaper in the world reports purely factual information about the risks and situations, some vocal group will always start on the emotive, hysterical, 'all nuclear is bad' line. Unfortunately, because it is easier to be afraid of something than to educate yourself in it.

It's easy to be fearful of something you cannot see, hear or smell and only find out you've been affected by it some time later

[Jason Thompson]

It's easy to be fearful of something you cannot see, hear or smell and only find out you've been affected by it some time later

Of course it is, but how is that different from most bacteria or viruses? Disease symptoms don't start the second you're exposed to pathogens, yet people are so complacent about hygeine that I was the only one of four people to use the gents loo at the station this morning who actually washed his hands after!

Consider what effect the devastation in Japan is going to have on local hygeine, but how many news stories and fearmongering headlines do you see about that?

[Paul Monk]

I was going to sit down and write a lengthy piece on the hysteria revolving around the "nuclear apocalypse" in Japan and how factually incorrect some of the newspapers are, but its seems that Jason has done it for me! Thanks Jason.

And the safety review thing with UK reactors is just daft. They're very rigorously monitored for safety and the standards they're marked against are incredibly high. Do a safety review by all means but keep it in proportion. Lets not go over kill. Britain has a good record with nuclear power and all things radioactive. In fact I believe we're one of the few countries that can safely reprocess spent fuel rods so that must say something about our facilities. I'm not saying there's no risk involved but it needs to be kept in perspective.
Japan has done the right thing in moving people away from the area of radiation as the effects of exposure are dependent on how close you are to the source. Remember time, distance and shielding.

[Paul Monk]

Safety is always a trade-off between risk and probability. Do you refuse to certify a passenger airliner until it is 100% safe? What about a car? Or a crusie liner? 100% safety is an unachievable standard. With hindsight it's easy to say 'well they should have done this'.

This sounds like someone thats had to complete a lot of Risk Assesments

[Jason Thompson]

The really sad thing is that some people who have not been evacuated, instead of assuming it's because they're not in any danger as yet, are wondering if the authorities are keeping things from them and should actually be moving them!

[Paul Monk]

And as Jason said more people will be killed by dirty water supplies than they would by radioactivity.
Trouble is "Bad Hygeine Apocalypse" is a rubbish headline when compared to "Nuclear Apocalypse"

[Jason Thompson]

This sounds like someone thats had to complete a lot of Risk Assesments

Haha. Actually I've done very few. It comes more from endless debates from people who think the Moon landings were faked because aspects of it were 'too dangerous' to risk people on.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Is there any reason why these reactors needed to be bang on the coast anyway? Obviously the sea water is coming in handy now for cooling, but do they regularly use sea water? Couldn't an inland lake or river be used just as well? Even if they HAVE to be on the coast, the western coast would seem to be a safer option if you look at maps of where the plate boundaries actually are.

[Jason Thompson]

Is there any reason why these reactors needed to be bang on the coast anyway? Obviously the sea water is coming in handy now for cooling, but do they regularly use sea water? Couldn't an inland lake or river be used just as well? Even if they HAVE to be on the coast, the western coast would seem to be a safer option if you look at maps of where the plate boundaries actually are.

Given the immense cost of building, operating and maintaining them, I would say the answer to that would be 'yes', wouldn't it?