8.4 Earthquake Hits Japan

[Malovolpe 3]

The company that owns the reactors is scrapping 4 of them. The remaining two are operational. I don't think this reactor mess is as big of a deal as the news makes it out to be.

[PurpleGaga27 39]

Unless Japan can contain the radiation of those four damage reactors, they will have no choice but to destroy them. But destroying them can be dangerous as that can emit a lot of released radiation into the air.

[Nmenth 290]

Unless Japan can contain the radiation of those four damage reactors, they will have no choice but to destroy them. But destroying them can be dangerous as that can emit a lot of released radiation into the air.

How do you think they decommission a reactor, with explosive demolitions?

[Guest Rabbit]

I like how fitting your avatar is to your statement, Nmenth.

[Nmenth 290]

Indeed.

 

Except the only way a nuclear reactor can detonate in an atomic blast is if you hit it with an atomic bomb.

[Guest Rabbit]

Even then, it's not detonating the reactor. It's just blowing it up.

[rSquar3d 0]

Errr, just an update...

 

Japan Raises Alert Level!

[Nmenth 290]

 

Even if the disaster does get as bad as Chernobyl (which it probably won't), nuclear power accidents are really not as bad as they sound. Nuclear power just gets a bad image from the whole nuclear bomb thing.

 

Chernobyl only killed around 50 people. The tsunami has already killed well over 13,000 people, another 50 isn't that significant (relatively speaking).

 

All of this fear mongering is only going to make people afraid of nuclear energy when it is what people should be embracing, not decrying.

[Luk3us 63]

Perhaps, I'm not visiting Japan any time soon though.

[Malovolpe 3]

 

Even if the disaster does get as bad as Chernobyl (which it probably won't), nuclear power accidents are really not as bad as they sound. Nuclear power just gets a bad image from the whole nuclear bomb thing.

 

Chernobyl only killed around 50 people. The tsunami has already killed well over 13,000 people, another 50 isn't that significant (relatively speaking).

 

All of this fear mongering is only going to make people afraid of nuclear energy when it is what people should be embracing, not decrying.

 

Its not just the people who die that worries people, its the radiation. If I recall, the immediate area around Chernobyl is deserted and restricted due to it. But I don't think their will be a repeat of Chernobyl at the Japanese reactors. I agree that we should be embracing Nuclear Power though.

[Nmenth 290]

If I recall, the immediate area around Chernobyl is deserted and restricted due to it.

That is true, however, Chernobyl had two explosions that threw radioactive debris into the atmosphere, allowing the high-level radiation to spread over a very large area.

 

Leaking radiation, while not good, is nowhere near as hazardous as radioactive explosions.

 

Chernobyl was possibly the worst nuclear power station ever designed with flaws on top of flaws and human error upon human error from an age in which radioactive cores were not properly respected. I doubt there will ever be another accident comparable to Chernobyl simply because people aren't that stupid regarding nuclear power anymore.

[Guest Stevie_K]

I agree, unless some natural disaster causes unforeseen consequences and things get out of hand.

Pretty much the case we have right now, although I don't think it will ever get as bad as in Ukraine either.

[Nyerguds 100]

I agree that we should be embracing Nuclear Power though.

Just not on top of fault lines.

[Nmenth 290]

Just not on top of fault lines.

It was the tsunami that caused the problems, not the quake itself. Nuclear reactors are built to resist earthquakes, and floods as well, but the tsunami was too much water too fast.

 

Suppose they didn't build nuclear stations in Japan, then rather than a potential hazard from an extremely rare and uniquely unpredictable natural disaster, they can endure a guaranteed pollutant hazard from alternative power sources.

[PurpleGaga27 39]

It's too bad this Japan crisis isn't even over yet, and the area is still being struck by lots of aftershocks. By the time this is over, there will probably be over a trillion dollars of damage to the area.

[Chimas 7]

... Chernobyl only killed around 50 people ...

 

That tsunami is over, Chernobyl is not.

Nor it has visible area limits.

Or good death stats.

[Nyerguds 100]

Maybe it killed 50 people right away... but the amount of exposure victims that died over the following years, and the amount of miscarriages and horrible mutation handicaps in the next generation caused by the radiation are quite a bit higher than your optimistic "50".

[Nmenth 290]

Maybe it killed 50 people right away... but the amount of exposure victims that died over the following years, and the amount of miscarriages and horrible mutation handicaps in the next generation caused by the radiation are quite a bit higher than your optimistic "50".

No, it killed 31 right away, then approximately 15 deaths were attributed to it over the following 20 years. I rounded it up to 50 under the assumption that a few more people may have died without getting labeled as Chernobyl victims.

[Guest Stevie_K]

Those 50 deaths are still very optimistic statistics compared to the damage caused to the environment.

[Nmenth 290]

Ok, 50 deaths seems unrealistically low, and that is true... sort of. That is the current statistic.

 

Misleading you wasn't my intention, but it didn't occur to me to mention future deaths or even take them into consideration.

 

Experts predict when all comes to pass, there will be around 4000 extra cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl (eventually). However, that is actually less than a 10% increase over the number of cancer deaths that would have happened to all of the people exposed to Chernobyl's fallout anyway had the accident not taken place.

 

Nevertheless, there was no fallout from Fukushima, and unless it suddenly decides to spontaneously explode, there won't be. A full meltdown would irradiate the ground and possibly the shore, but it will not be as bad as Chernobyl.

 

The only reason they are even comparing this to Chernobyl is because the accident is proving to be so complicated, and therefore difficult to manage.