3 ms·

The economic cost of dealing with the disaster and its cleanup, to Japan's present and future generations, is immense. The loss of land in a crowded country wh

by oska 11y ago

The economic cost of dealing with the disaster and its cleanup, to Japan's present and future generations, is immense. The loss of land in a crowded country where inhabitable land is at a premium is also a very heavy blow, which could have easily got much worse if the disaster had cascaded down to reactors closer to Tokyo, as the Prime Minister at the time very much feared as a real possibility. Measuring the scale of disasters simply in loss of life is simplistic and also sometimes, as I think here, disingenuous.

Symmetry 11y ago
I think you're drastically underestimating the environmental cost of coal power if you think the damage done by Fukushima is incompatibly larger. Currently[1] the radiation in the evacuated area is as high as 3uSv/hr which works out to 26 mSv/yr. That's a lot compared to what most of us get but it's lower than the permitted dose for nuclear plant workers and it's much lower than the inhabitants of Ramsar, Iran, experience and they don't have a particularly higher cancer incidence than other populations. That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a lot of cleanup to do or that there aren't hotspots to stay away from but the area that's uninhabitable is very small. There was a certain amount of luck involved in where the wind was blowing but on the other there was also a certain amount of bad luck in the plant being struck by such a [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#/media/File:Fukushima_I_radiation,_Fukushima_Prefecture_2,_March_2011.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- oska 11y ago
  Believe me, I most certainly don't underestimate the environmental cost of coal power. Coal or nuclear power is a false dichotomy but one that is continually trotted out by nuclear boosters such as the author of this piece. > there was also a certain amount of bad luck No, it wasn't bad luck. They built the reactor right next to a coastline that is famous for tsunami risk and where there are historical markers of previous tsunamis. They ignored safety concerns that were raised on a number of occasions [1]. That is not bad luck, that is bad and corrupt management. The nuclear industry, being necessarily a highly centralised, capital intensive industry has very close links to Japan's less than transparent government. It is a corporate model ripe for corruption and that is what the Fukushima disaster (and previous incidents in Japan) exposed. The Japanese people, sensibly, don't trust it and demonstrated in large numbers against it, something that is quite unusual in Japan. And yet numerous arm-chair nuclear boosters around the world tell the Japanese people that they should just suck it up and keep exposing themselves to this existential risk. [2] As I said above, I'm not terribly concerned about the radiation risks and loss of life from this disaster. I'm more concerned by its economic impact, loss of valuable land and community impact. The costs of rehabilitation have been estimated at between $250 billion and $500 billion. [3] That huge amount of money would have bought a very sizeable amount of solar and wind power to Japan. Now it's wasted on the very non-productive clean-up of a disaster. The nuclear industry has continually proved itself to be a black hole for money that could have been spent on sustainable development. This is the guy you hired who sexually harassed the secretary, wrote false invoices to his benefit and burnt down the regional office. He says he's ‘learnt his lesson’ and deserves another go. He's obviously sick and disfunctional but what about the people who stand up for him? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Safety_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considere... [3] http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-heal...

by oska 11y ago

Symmetry 11y ago

I think you're drastically underestimating the environmental cost of coal power if you think the damage done by Fukushima is incompatibly larger. Currently[1] the radiation in the evacuated area is as high as 3uSv/hr which works out to 26 mSv/yr. That's a lot compared to what most of us get but it's lower than the permitted dose for nuclear plant workers and it's much lower than the inhabitants of Ramsar, Iran, experience and they don't have a particularly higher cancer incidence than other populations. That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a lot of cleanup to do or that there aren't hotspots to stay away from but the area that's uninhabitable is very small. There was a certain amount of luck involved in where the wind was blowing but on the other there was also a certain amount of bad luck in the plant being struck by such a [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#/media/File:Fukushima_I_radiation,_Fukushima_Prefecture_2,_March_2011.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

oska 11y ago
Believe me, I most certainly don't underestimate the environmental cost of coal power. Coal or nuclear power is a false dichotomy but one that is continually trotted out by nuclear boosters such as the author of this piece. > there was also a certain amount of bad luck No, it wasn't bad luck. They built the reactor right next to a coastline that is famous for tsunami risk and where there are historical markers of previous tsunamis. They ignored safety concerns that were raised on a number of occasions [1]. That is not bad luck, that is bad and corrupt management. The nuclear industry, being necessarily a highly centralised, capital intensive industry has very close links to Japan's less than transparent government. It is a corporate model ripe for corruption and that is what the Fukushima disaster (and previous incidents in Japan) exposed. The Japanese people, sensibly, don't trust it and demonstrated in large numbers against it, something that is quite unusual in Japan. And yet numerous arm-chair nuclear boosters around the world tell the Japanese people that they should just suck it up and keep exposing themselves to this existential risk. [2] As I said above, I'm not terribly concerned about the radiation risks and loss of life from this disaster. I'm more concerned by its economic impact, loss of valuable land and community impact. The costs of rehabilitation have been estimated at between $250 billion and $500 billion. [3] That huge amount of money would have bought a very sizeable amount of solar and wind power to Japan. Now it's wasted on the very non-productive clean-up of a disaster. The nuclear industry has continually proved itself to be a black hole for money that could have been spent on sustainable development. This is the guy you hired who sexually harassed the secretary, wrote false invoices to his benefit and burnt down the regional office. He says he's ‘learnt his lesson’ and deserves another go. He's obviously sick and disfunctional but what about the people who stand up for him? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Safety_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considere... [3] http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-health-policy-institute/responses/costs-and-consequences-of-fukushima.html http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/environmental-heal...