Japan has raised the severity level of its nuclear crisis to the maximum seven, putting the emergency at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant on a par with Chernobyl.
Officials from the nuclear and industrial safety agency (Nisa) confirmed that the crisis level had been raised from five to seven on the international nuclear and radiological event scale.
At the same time there are reports of serious shortages affecting economic production, 200,000 people without homes or having restricted access to them, there will be serious health issues for many, the sea has been contaminated affecting the food chain, maybe for some time to come, and the plant still has no cooling system meaning the crisis is far from over yet.
I think in retrospect that justifies my comment on March 11 that:
Don't think nuclear melt down in Japan is some minor issue.
It's massive. For the world.
I am very, very worried.
This issue still has the capacity to have such an impact - and may well do so, given that the awareness of the severity of the issue is growing, not declining.
I'd compare that with Tim Worstall on his blog, who said:
Absolutely the worst that could happen, absolutely the worst possible outcome, is that the reactors end up as a puddle of cold metal at the bottom of their containment vessels.
That's it. The chain reaction is already shut down. All that is left is the residual heat which the water is cooling. If the water doesn't cool it then yes, the rods and fuel might melt. At which point they might stay liquid until they hit that 2-3 metres of reinforced concrete underneath them where they will solidify.
So the worst possible outcome is a 40 year old reactor which cannot be used again.
If evidence were needed that, as ever, the man has not a clue what he's talking about, this is it.
As ever, the judgement of the right wing is proven to be utterly unsound.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Did you even read that article beyond the headline?
The rest of the article goes on to say that Fukushima is no-where near as bad as Chernobyl and that raise the threat rating is an overly cautious move.
Yes, that’s obviously why they did it
Do you think we’re stupid?
You’ve nailed him properly this time, Richard!
With economics, its difficult to absolutely prove things beyond doubt, but with something like this, right and wrong are demonstrable.
Don’t forget to bring this up every time he comments!
In what way (a) is nuclear physics a left/right issue and (b) are either of you in any way qualified to comment?
KimBjo LIKES this comment. lol.
Nuclear Energy isn’t a political issue, or rather, it shouldn’t be, and unfortunately it becomes one all the time…
Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels, hydroelectric, and in many situations cleaner than solar and wind!
So yah, let’s just depoliticize this please….
Resource allocation is always political
So is the right to devastate the landscape
And to pollute for the long term
And to leave a legacy for future generations to resolve
This issue is inherently political
Of course I have a right to comment
Richard: I said that the worst outcome would be that the reactors ended up as a puddle of metal at the bottom. What has happened? We’ve had partial meltdowns and the reactors are, partly, puddles of metal at the bottom of the containment vessels.
The radiation levels are, from that Guardian article, 10% of Chernobyl. And they’re iodine, half life 8 days, so they won’t bioaccumulate. So far there have been no deaths at all, no one has received a dose even likely to cause their death and as far as we can tell no one ever will simply because in a few months there won’t be any iodine 135 left.
I’m often wrong, my judgement is often faulty. But this doesn’t appear to be one of those times.
But Tim,are you not excluding those guys actually working on the plant ? It seems to be accepted that they will probably be the first victims,and some in the near future.One cannot but admire their extreme bravery.
No, I’m not excluding those working at the plant.
Those who went wading in the radioactive water have received something akin to bad sunburn (yes, UV light really is ionising radiation) and no one, as yet, has had a cumulative dose of over 250 millisieverts. A few (three or four, sorry, cannot remember) have had over 100 millisieverts. The level which increases lifetime cancer risk by one or two percent.
You might find this interesting:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
Nuclear is the safest form of energy generation we have. Yes, even including uranium mining and Chernobyl. Yes, it’s safer than windmills, solar cells and even hydropower.
Tim
I reiterate my point – all you prove is your inability to comprehend the human condition, blinded as you are by cost-benefit analysis, flawed as it is
You expose the weakness of your argument – rational as you think it may be – as a consequence, and it is precisely that rational indifference to the human condition that means the right cannot be trusted
We cannot agree on this issue.
This debate is therefore closed.
Not all the waste is iodine – or the radiation would have gone already
Instead we see an increasing risk and increasing evacuation
Your comments only make sense if we assume a callous indifference to the plight of those affected
And that is why your comments were wrong and remain so
Let’s get a sense of perspective. 28,000 are dead or missing as a result of the tsunami, and we can’t do anything about natural disasters like that. The number of deaths as a result of the nuclear leak is likely to be substantially less.
Remember, no one died at Three Mile Island and there is still no evidence that a single person contracted cancer as a result of that “disaster”.
Chernobyl has killed less than one hundred people.
Nuclear power is the safest form of power there is. This debate is like flying – statistically by far the safest form of transport, with people far more likely to die in road traffic accidents.
There are more deaths attributed to the coal industry and even wind power generation for goodness sake than nuclear. Coal in particular is extremely dangerous (and more radioactive materials are emitted into the atmosphere from coal mining than nuclear production).
What would have happened if the tsunami had flooded a coal mine?
200,000 evacuated, maybe long term
Massive pollution
Massive exposure to risk
And yet you say no issue at all
I’m not saying anything is risk free
But I persist in believing nothing is riskier than nuclear power
And I think the evidence is absolutely clear – and always have
The fact is simple – we have no clue how to deal with nuclear waste
Until we have we have no right to create it
@Gutbucket – partly agree. Utilities by nature of size of entity and population impacted tend to have significant state and private vested interests so likely to end up, however indirect, attached to right or left manifesto. No matter how scientifically “neutral” anyone professes to be, likely broad right/left leanings influence a person’s take on the matter. However, I’m disappointed after closing down long running comments on this in recent weeks (quite rightly), it has been revisited here – it just fans the flames and further polarises the issue. Plenty of other sites/blogs better suited to this so a touch of hubris. George Monbiot’s recent posts more insightful on both the issue itself and ideology.
Comments closed down?
Yes, they were – and I reserve the right to do so again
But odd that your comment is here, isn’t it?