On 2011-03-14, Tim Wescott wrote:
On 03/14/2011 02:16 PM, Pete C. wrote:

anorton wrote:

"Steve wrote in message
...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/1...e-explanation/


Now I'll wait for the doom and gloom crowd to start wailing....


I appreciate someone tries to provide a technical explanation of what has
happened free from errors in the major media. I do not appreciate a his
apologists tone of "everything is under control now."

This piece was written on 3/12 apparently just before the second explosion
that injured 11 workers:
"The plant is safe now and will stay safe."
(that was the first bullet point in his summary)

Also there is major discrepancy between this following statement of his and
other reports of the radiation level on the ground and the report that
workers were treated for radiation sickness:

Quote
There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would
receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that
comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.
Unquote

I am not against nuclear power, but these sorts of statements which
essentially say "trust us - every thing is hunky dory" are what make people
deeply suspicious and antagonistic (especially when the plant explodes that
same day and a third gets into trouble).

You're reading too much into the second explosion. One thing with
Japanese culture is that they are very focused on following their
procedures to the letter, and if the procedure said to vent the
steam/hydrogen/oxygen into the reactor building vs. outside, that is
what they would do, despite the fact that the procedure blew up the
building on another reactor a couple days prior.

I've not read any reports about anyone being treated for radiation
sickness. I have read reports of people being checked for radioactive
contamination and being given prophylactic stable iodine tablets to
prevent uptake of any radioactive iodine that they might be exposed to.
Reports I've read have indicated radiation levels well over background
but far below any danger level at their peaks and those levels dropping
rapidly.

And besides -- his "significant" probably means "massive fish die-offs,
people not allowed to return to their homes, etc.", not "a few people
get seriously crapped up".

Even including Chernobyl, I suspect that fewer people have died from
disease caused by nuclear power than have died from disease caused by
fossil fuels. Even if you normalize by Joule of useful energy, I
_still_ think that nuclear power does better.

It's only when you normalize by "words out of Jane Fonda's mouth" that
nuclear starts looking _really bad_.


The big plus of the Japan situation, is that even if the worst happens
-- the fuel waste rods catch on fire due to the waste fuel pond
draining, and the reactors blow up, releasing hot fuel -- the station
is on the Eastern coast of Japan and the stuff will likely just settle
in the Pacific ocean.

i