Back in Tokyo after visiting disaster area

[Erik Franzén]

6. As was mentioned by Peter Majtan on another thread, one of the best ways to help in the near future will be to come here and shoot your productions etc in this beautiful country. We have so much to offer and the scenery and sights are spectacular. It's also one of the safest countries on earth and a technological paradise akin to Blade Runner if you want that aspect (it's why I'm here!). I know the yen/dollar rate is not favouring the USD right now, but this is a concrete step you can take to help the economy whilst also making your productions that much more unique and authentic if you're looking for Japanese/Asian influences in your work. And it's cherry blossom season soon! One of the most beautiful times of the year to visit!

You had me at 'cheery blossom'!

 

[Stephen Gentle]

You should probably let the Japanese Self Defense Forces and the Nuclear workers know...they're wasting alot of time and energy worrying in Northern Japan.

[...]

It looks like they had to evacuate the plant yet again this morning due to rising radiation levels.....i dunno Paul, it looks like something more than trivial is happening here. But I'm not trying to argue with you.

It's starting to sound like you're just trolling for the sake of it... Obviously a big part of the reason it's safe in the areas surrounding the site is because the problems are being effectively managed by the workers and the self-defense force...

And I don't think that an accident caused by one of the top five (or something like that) largest earthquakes in recorded history, followed by a massive tsunami in a very old reactor design is a reason to stop developing the only viable way that we currently have of producing enough power without greenhouse gas emissions to satisfy energy demands (which are only rising).

We have to learn from past events to make things safer. Air travel is the safest method of transport today (apart from the elevator), but it wouldn't be if safety improvements hadn't been made every time something went wrong and a plane crashed. And imagine how it would have set back humankind if we'd just given up after a few planes crashed.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

MIke, these statements are confusing. The best way to deal with radiation is with time, distance, and shielding? That sounds like no solution at all.

It's how you minimize your exposure to radiation when you're working with it; you minimize the time you spend close to the source, you maximize the distance you are from the source, and you try to keep some form of shielding between you and the source. Very simple; as I said, a child can understand it.

You've asked what qualification others possess to have opinions on this matter, and received replies; what are your qualifications, Anthony? Here's mine:

How can you say "I love radiation" and then say, "the guys up close and personal to it is a different kettle of fish and significant courage on display".

I agree with you that those guys are pulling alot of weight, and have tremendous amounts of courage.

The reason I love radiation is as stated; you can easily and accurately measure it so you KNOW exactly what kind of radiation you're dealing with, and how much of it you have. That's not possible with other hazardous materials - all kinds of toxic & corrosive chemicals - let alone (and especially) other potential terrorist agents, such as chemical weapons and biologicals; few can be tested for easily, reliably, or quickly - a lot of false positives and negatives. No, give me a radiation incident to deal with any time - and I guarantee most hazmat & counter-terrorist guys feel the same.

The courage of the Japanese workers comes from the fact that they're going into a volatile, fast-changing situation, taking exposures at or over the permitted limits, with no guarantee that a sudden worsening of the situation won't give them a potentially harmful dose.

Maybe it's time the obvious was stated. No more nuclear reactors.

How about we invest the tens of billions of dollars they cost into a variety of non-poisonous power generating possibilities instead, and stop wasting the energy we do have.

Not a great idea; what we need are modern safer gen III and IV reactors - gen IV especially, as those reactors will be capable of burning the accumulated high-level waste from past & present nuclear programs as fuel, producing waste which decays to safe levels over much shorter periods - hundreds of years, rather than hundreds of thousands as with existing waste. But I really suggest we leave a debate on this alone; it's seriously off-topic for the thread.

Mike

 

[Anthony Gratl]

It's starting to sound like you're just trolling for the sake of it... Obviously a big part of the reason it's safe in the areas surrounding the site is because the problems are being effectively managed by the workers and the self-defense force...

And I don't think that an accident caused by one of the top five (or something like that) largest earthquakes in recorded history, followed by a massive tsunami in a very old reactor design is a reason to stop developing the only viable way that we currently have of producing enough power without greenhouse gas emissions to satisfy energy demands (which are only rising).

We have to learn from past events to make things safer. Air travel is the safest method of transport today (apart from the elevator), but it wouldn't be if safety improvements hadn't been made every time something went wrong and a plane crashed. And imagine how it would have set back humankind if we'd just given up after a few planes crashed.

OKay look Stephen. First, I'm not trolling.
You've kinda missed the point here. It's not safe around the plant because it's leaking radiation. That's why they have an exclusion zone.
That's the point.
And that's why I brought up the point about what Paul wrote in the first place. Call me a stickler if you want to.
Second, to state that nuclear reactors don't generate ghg's is totally incorrect, both during their manufacture and during operation.

As to your analogy, there's a vast gulf in consequences between a plane crash and a nuclear meltdown.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

You've asked what qualification others possess to have opinions on this matter, and received replies; what are your qualifications, Anthony?

My qualifications are an education and a set of research skills that allow me to make reasoned decisions and comments. Paul's blanket statement that a nuclear situation is fine and media driven leads me to ask about qualifications, since the statement is pretty extreme, and conflicts with both the Japanese gov't and the IAEE assessments of the situation, which currently rate it as a 5 (on a scale of 1 to 7), which makes it equal to 3 mile island. Which was, all can agree I hope, a disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Not a great idea; what we need are modern safer gen III and IV reactors - gen IV especially, as those reactors will be capable of burning the accumulated high-level waste from past & present nuclear programs as fuel, producing waste which decays to safe levels over much shorter periods - hundreds of years, rather than hundreds of thousands as with existing waste. But I really suggest we leave a debate on this alone; it's seriously off-topic for the thread.

Mike

Clean energy that creates local jobs and spreads out the power grid bad.
Radioactive energy that's really expensive to build, maintain, and store, and can poison us, good?
Really? We'll have to agree to disagree.

The nuclear/chemical age is a disaster for humans. I don't think it's a coincidence that cancer rates are soaring, nor that clusters have been found around nuclear plants

As to my comment, it came out of an initial post about nuclear power. It's not really off-topic. But can be discussed elsewhere. I'm not looking to quarrel with you, or Paul for that matter.

I don't like blanket statements that are incorrect is all. And by all means, if I've made some, I'm happy to retract them. The truth is important, no?

 

[Andrew Walker]

When this whole Japan disaster happened one of the first things I thought of when I got onto Reduser was how you were doing out there Paul. Glad to hear you made it through and still are. Kind of shity to hear about the lack of aid in that situation but it seems like that's what happens everywhere, even in the USA. In an event like that you just have to plan on being on your own for a while because to depend on the gov to save you or help is a tall order. Again, glad to hear you are doing well.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Second, to state that nuclear reactors don't generate ghg's is totally incorrect, both during their manufacture and during operation.

What the heck is a ghg?

Mike

 

[Noah Kadner]

I consider Japan one of my favorite countries in the world- love the culture, food, people and more. I look forward to returning soon!

Noah

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

...IAEE assessments of the situation, which currently rate it as a 5 (on a scale of 1 to 7), which makes it equal to 3 mile island. Which was, all can agree I hope, a disaster.

It was an accident; whether you can call it a 'disaster' is highly debatable. No-one died. There's little or no evidence anyone was harmed. So it's hard to call it a 'disaster'! But I don't think it's a great comparison; to me the situation in Japan is a considerably worse accident than Three Mile Island. Apart from anything else, it's not over yet!

Clean energy that creates local jobs and spreads out the power grid bad.

Ahhh if only you knew me... I was born & raised in the Highlands of Scotland. My father spend all of his working life in the hydro-electric industry. I was raised with dams and hydro power stations as my playgrounds, literally. I LOVE hydro - and other 'clean energy' come to that.

Me? "clean energy bad?" Where did I EVER say that??? That's a perfect example of 'assume' makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'... making such an assumption on zero evidence is pretty good evidence of trolling, I have to say.

Radioactive energy that's really expensive to build, maintain, and store, and can poison us, good?

It has its place, and it's an important technology to master. Certainly makes more sense to me than burning valuable hydrocarbons. And even if we ultimately find better (fusion? cheap high-efficiency solar? hot deep rock?) sources of energy, it still makes more sense to dispose of existing high-level waste by burning it in gen IV reactors, than to store it indefinitely.

But it depends on the geography; nuclear would be insane for Iceland, for instance, which has abundant hydro and geothermal. But makes a lot more sense in Japan, which has few alternative means of providing large firm power.

Mike

 

[paulherrin]

Paul, thank you so much for your report.

Others need to chill out and drink some perspective. We're not here to debate radiation levels. No one is saying there should be zero concern about the situation, but I'll stay stop gluing your face to the * media screen and regurgitating the results. Paul and Mike are trained to know what they are talking about, and they are giving us the down to earth answers. Let's think about what we're accomplishing with an argument like this here. Not to minimize them, but the same thing goes for the complaints about the government relief efforts. Certainly, we should remain reasonably concerned about these things, and take necessary action, but to sit back and just spread negativity is another thing. So... let's stop being childish.

Thanks again Paul for sharing your perspective. We wish you all well.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

It was an accident; whether you can call it a 'disaster' is highly debatable. No-one died. There's little or no evidence anyone was harmed. So it's hard to call it a 'disaster'! But I don't think it's a great comparison; to me the situation in Japan is a considerably worse accident than Three Mile Island. Apart from anything else, it's not over yet!

Disagree that noone was harmed. Radiation exposure is hard to measure over the short or long term, but the fact that there are cancer clusters around working non-leaking nuclear reactors tells me that when one leaks it's really bad for long term human health.

Totally agreed on the last part. This just out from the bbc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12825342

Ahhh if only you knew me... I was born & raised in the Highlands of Scotland. My father spend all of his working life in the hydro-electric industry. I was raised with dams and hydro power stations as my playgrounds, literally. I LOVE hydro - and other 'clean energy' come to that.

Me? "clean energy bad?" Where did I EVER say that??? That's a perfect example of 'assume' makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'... making such an assumption on zero evidence is pretty good evidence of trolling, I have to say.

You stated, in response to my statement on investing in clean energy technology....

Not a great idea; what we need are modern safer gen III and IV reactors -

which i took to mean that your take on green energy is that it's not good. Obviously a miscommunication.
Kinda like how you assume that I'm trolling:w00t:

Born and raised in the highlands of Scotland? Lucky you. Really.
Beautiful country, like all of this planet.
Which is another reason why I don't like poisons on it, you know?

It has its place, and it's an important technology to master. Certainly makes more sense to me than burning valuable hydrocarbons. And even if we ultimately find better (fusion? cheap high-efficiency solar? hot deep rock?) sources of energy, it still makes more sense to dispose of existing high-level waste by burning it in gen IV reactors, than to store it indefinitely.

But it depends on the geography; nuclear would be insane for Iceland, for instance, which has abundant hydro and geothermal. But makes a lot more sense in Japan, which has few alternative means of providing large firm power.

Mike

Although it's a long and complicated subject, one of the problems with nuclear reactors is the amount of hydrocarbons it takes to build and maintain a reactor.....which is why to me the economics of nuclear don't work out.
It doesn't really make sense to me to build nuclear reactors on the edge of a techtonic plate system know as the "ring of fire"

http://geography.about.com/cs/earthquakes/a/ringoffire.htm

I could imagine that japan would have lots of possibilities for both wind and tidal power generation.

Regardless, to state that I'm trolling is totally wrong.
I'd rather have a beer with you and discuss. If you're ever on Vancouver Island, I'd be happy to buy you a few of
the lovely local island pints that abound.
Cheers
Tony

My thoughts, as this disaster continues, continue to be with the people of Japan and with all beings of this planet.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

No one is saying there should be zero concern about the situation, but I'll stay stop gluing your face to the * media screen and regurgitating the results. Paul and Mike are trained to know what they are talking about, and they are giving us the down to earth answers. Let's think about what we're accomplishing with an argument like this here. Not to minimize them, but the same thing goes for the complaints about the government relief efforts. Certainly, we should remain reasonably concerned about these things, and take necessary action, but to sit back and just spread negativity is another thing. So... let's stop being childish.

I guess you didn't read Paul's opening paragraph about the nuclear part of it.
Also, to state that Paul and Mike are trained to talk about the meltdown of a nuclear reactor, and that they're giving us "down to earth answers" that will pass muster, is again, at odds with what experts in the field are saying.

I'm amazed that I'm getting this level of flack for simply stating that, hey OP, thanks for all the info, although your statement on the nuclear problem is flatly at odds with the experts.

Btw, this problem affects all of us, not just the people of Japan. Hardly childish.


This isn't an argument. Having these kinds of discussions Paul, is what leads to more people thinking about them, which leads to more discussions. It's one way that we
evolve as a species, hopefully for the better.
It's just really unfortunate that it often takes disasters to initiate important discussion.

 

[paulherrin]

PM being sent. This isn't the proper way for adults to discuss said issues. I'm sure we are all mostly in agreement on many things, including the potential seriousness of the situation, but the way in which we are communicating seems to be causing some attitudinal problems. I'll ask again as kindly as I can, as Jim and the moderator's have even on this very specific issue, to speak with integrity and heart on this or any subject.

 

[Vladimir Cassel]

The nuclear plant situation is definitely overblown by the media and paranoia and the word 'disaster' in regards to it isn't accurate. Each year in the United States air pollution from coal-fired power plants is estimated to kill 17,000 people and every year a couple of thousand miners die in Chinese coal mines. Compare that to deaths caused by nuclear plant accidents. The outrage and paranoia certainly feels lopsided here.

 

[Frank Weeks]

Thanks for posting this Paul. I did not realize the vastness of this disaster until I found this National Geographic Before and After link from your google earth reference.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-japan-tsunami-earthquake-world-before-after/

Unbelievable

 

[Peter Stelzhammer]

Hmm, I hope I can use this thread since the other one got closed before (it's shame...).
If not - feel free to delete my post!

There's new footage from the tsunami impact around;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a7_1301163352

I think this one shows pretty good how the wave emerged a river...
During the first minute or so it doesn't look that bad at all - you'd still think you have a chance to run away, but after 2 minutes or so you see the water level rise pretty quick - just take a look how the light post gets completly swallowed (I don't know how high they are, but I assume a least 4 meter). And that's only for the time the water is rising - not for the second wave of damage when all that stuff gets sucked back into the ocean. It's just immense - if you're not on the 3rd floor or higher and if you're not in a "massive" building -> no chance of escaping other than by pure luck.

I'd really like to do more for the people over there, but other than donating money (which I did already) there's not much I can do so far...

 

[Emanuel A.]

Paul,

I had already placed my humble thoughts on one of my favorite reduser.net posters and living in Tokyo, that is, you

Nice to know U'r in the front line reporting it, as the best soldier of your craft ;-)

Take care,

E

 

[Joe G.]

"3. The media, as always, have blown the nuclear thing WAY out of proportion. I spent days near the Fukushima reactors and there was never any danger THERE, let alone in Tokyo or anywhere further away. I saw first hand the radiation scanners doing their jobs and turning up no dangerous levels of radiation anywhere."

This is flat wrong, and dangerous ignorance.

The biggest danger from radiation is ingesting particles. They then irradiate your cells, and can do so for the rest of your life causing cancer.

This misleading message about only counting the measured radiation in the air misses the far bigger story. It is leading to massive contamination, and radioactive particles are reported in the US and Europe. You may ignorantly presume they are of no concern, but this is simply false. Radioactivity is not safe in any quantity. It is damaging to human health, and particularly if ingested.

The reactors at Fukushima are spewing not just iodine but cesium (which is absorbed in the body) and possibily PLUTONIUM! Plutonium is the most toxic substance on earth. Just because you can't see and taste radiation does not mean it is not damaging, and potentially life threatening over the long term.

 

[Emanuel A.]

The reactors at Fukushima are spewing not just iodine but cesium (which is absorbed in the body) and possibily PLUTONIUM! Plutonium is the most toxic substance on earth. Just because you can't see and taste radiation does not mean it is not damaging, and potentially life threatening over the long term.

Right From your own quote quoting Paul... ;-)

«I saw first hand the radiation scanners doing their jobs and turning up no dangerous levels of radiation anywhere.»

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Radioactivity is not safe in any quantity. It is damaging to human health, and particularly if ingested.

I recommend moving to a lead lined sarcophagus and should definitely stop eating bananas.